Call me 'ze,' not 'he': University wants everyone to use 'gender inclusive' pronouns

UPDATE: Rickey Hall, the vice chancellor for diversity and inclusion at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville, said their quest for gender neutral pronouns is not an official university policy.

 “It’s not policy,” he said. “It’s about inclusive practice.”

Hall told me the gender neutral pronouns were a way of “exposing our students (to an) increasingly diverse and global world.”
He said gender neutral pronoun usage is not new – and that as things change – people always have questions. Nevertheless, he stressed this is not a mandated university policy.

For all you folks who went to school back when there were only him and her – here’s a primer: some of the new gender neutral pronouns are ze, hir, zir, xe, xem and xyr.

“I reiterate, it’s not a mandate, it’s not an official policy, it’s not a policy from the board,” he told me. “It’s about education. We are (a) higher education institution and exposing our students to a lot of different things.”

Educators in the Volunteer State are very concerned that students might be offended by the usage of traditional pronouns like she, he, him and hers, according to a document from the University of Tennessee – Knoxville’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion.

“With the new semester beginning and an influx of new students on campus, it is important to participate in making our campus welcoming and inclusive for all,” wrote Donna Braquet in a posting on the university’s website. “One way to do that is to use a student’s chosen name and their correct pronouns.”
Click here to join Todd’s American Dispatch – a MUST READ for Conservatives!
Braquet, who is director of the university’s Pride Center, suggested using a variety of gender neutral pronouns instead of traditional pronouns.

 Dumb Ass

“There are dozens of gender-neutral pronouns,” she declared.
For all you folks who went to school back when there were only him and her – here’s a primer: some of the new gender neutral pronouns are ze, hir, zir, xe, xem and xyr.
“These may sound a little funny at first, but only because they are new,” Braquet explained. “The ‘she’ and ‘he’ pronouns would sound strange too if we had been taught ‘ze’ when growing up.”
Somehow I sincerely doubt that, but whatever. Anything goes for the sake of inclusivity, right?
“Instead of calling roll, ask everyone to provide their name and pronouns,” she wrote. “This ensures you are not singling out transgender or non-binary students.”
For example, the birth certificate might say that Big Earl is a male. But what if Big Earl identifies as a lady who wants to be called Lawanda?
According to the procedures outlined by the folks at the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, the professor is obligated to call Big Earl – Lawanda – or whatever name makes Big Earl feel more included.
“We should not assume someone’s gender by their appearance, nor by what is listed on a roster or in student information systems,” Braquet wrote. “Transgender people and people who do not identify within the gender binary may use a different name than their legal name and pronouns of their gender identity, rather than the pronouns of the sex they were assigned at birth.”
It’s all so confusing, right? So thankfully, the Office for Diversity and Inclusion has devised a way to prevent students and professors from calling “sir” a “ma’am.”
“You can always politely ask,” she wrote. “’Oh, nice to meet you (insert name). What pronouns should I use?’ is a perfectly fine question to ask.”
Let’s just say that not everyone is on board with the new gender neutral pronouns. Lots of folks in Big Orange Country are turning blood red.
“It’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard,” Republican State Sen. Mae Beavers told me. “If you must interview a student before you greet the student, that’s not acceptance – that’s just absurd.”
Beavers represents a “very conservative” district and she said her constituents are enraged over how their tax money is being spent by the university.
“The idea a child would want to be called by a gender neutral term is absolutely ridiculous,” she said. “It’s getting so crazy in this country.”
Julie West has two children at the university – not to mention a family dog named after the Volunteer’s revered coach – General Neyland.
“This isn’t inclusion,” she said. “This is the radical transformation of our lives and language.”
I reached out to the vice chancellor for tolerance and diversity (yes they really do have such a thing) – but I’m still waiting for him or her or ze or xyr to call me back.
There you have it, folks. His and Hers is no longer good enough at the University of Tennessee – where they are willing to sacrifice anything for the sake of gender inclusivity – including common sense.
I wonder if they’ve got a gender neutral word for idiot?

Fact Check: Which Republican candidates actually cut spending?

Every Republican presidential candidate has promised to keep government spending in check -- but which ones actually have a track record of doing that? 

All say they would cut. In the last debate, Jeb Bush said people in Florida called him "Veto-Corleone" because he vetoed so much spending. Mike Huckabee said the federal government "is not too big to shrink." Chris Christie says he "balanced budgets."
Is it true? There are an almost infinite number of ways that records can be spun. Some focus on cuts in one small program or on small tax cuts. But governors have actual records. So what do they show?
The "Stossel" show crunched the numbers on that -- adjusting them for inflation and population growth. Here's what the data on governors and ex-governors show:
The chart above shows that Bush cut spending the most. Though he's criticized by conservatives as "too moderate," the former Florida governor cut spending by an average of 1.39 percent each year he was in office. Most cuts came from "public assistance," higher education, and state discretionary spending.
But the above chart isn't perfect for comparing candidates, because governors serve terms in very different time periods. Some served during recessions, when most states must cut spending.
We adjusted for that by doing another comparison -- how much each governor spent compared with other governors in office at that same time:

Related Image

Expand / Contract

This chart, at right, shows that Bush was indeed the biggest budget cutter. During his tenure, Florida's spending shrunk by 3.6 percentage points more than the average. He cut spending by 1.39 percent per year in his state, while other states increased theirs by 2.3 percent during that same period. Kasich was also conservative by this measure, cutting spending 1.76 percentage points more than other states did.
But both charts show spending grew by the most under New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Arkansas Gov. Huckabee.
Asked for comment, a Huckabee spokeswoman said: "Having had to face the most Democrat legislature in the country, and a state controlled almost entirely by the Clinton Political Machine, Governor Huckabee is proud of his record of cutting taxes almost 100 times and leaving Arkansas with an almost $1 billion surplus."
Still, if a tax cut isn't accompanied by a fall in government spending, then taxes may have to go up in the future to pay for that.
Christie's spokesman said the growth of the budget under the Garden State governor is mostly driven by state entitlements, which the governor has little control over, and that he has cut the "discretionary" parts of the budget:
"When you scratch below the surface, the governor's fiscal discipline over the budget is more dramatic, with discretionary spending cut to $2.3 billion below where it was in 2008 [a 9 percent cut.] Non-discretionary spending in public employee entitlements and debt service have driven spending and we continue working to reform these programs and control those costs."
Christie's spokesman also notes, "Governor Christie has done this with a legislature controlled overwhelmingly by Democrats."
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's spokesman also said that entitlement spending made up most of the budget increases under Walker.
But Florida's entitlement spending also increased. Yet Bush made cuts in other areas deep enough to overtake that.
Kasich's spokesman said the chart shows the governor's good record.
"The governor has worked hard to manage the state efficiently, to rein in costs and to cut taxes, and as a result, the state workforce is the lowest it's been in 30 years," Kasich spokesman Rob Nichols said.
The senators running for president have no precise budget track record to nail down, but there are ratings that indicate whether they were fiscally conservative or reckless. The National Taxpayers' Union gives Texas Sen. Ted Cruz a 95 percent rating, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul 94 percent, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio 87 percent. Citizens Against Government Waste gives them all 100's -- putting them among the top 9 out of 100 senators when it comes to spending less.
DATA SOURCE: Raw spending data is from the National Association of State Budget Officers and includes all forms of state government spending, excluding federal grants and bond purchases. The data go through FY2014. The spending data were adjusted for inflation and population using BLS and Census data.

Emails show Bill Clinton asked State Dept. for OK on N. Korea, Congo invites

WASHINGTON –  Newly surfaced emails show the Clinton Foundation asked the State Department about proceeding with two presumably paid speeches for former President Bill Clinton in North Korea and the Republic of the Congo, despite each engagement’s ties to repressive regimes.

The emails, obtained by FoxNews.com, surfaced as part of a records request by the group Citizens United.
In both sets of 2012 emails between the foundation led by Bill Clinton and the department led by wife Hillary Clinton, the former president’s team acknowledged the invitations could raise concerns. But they asked the State Department, which screened all such speeches by the ex-president, anyway.
In one May 14, 2012 email, Clinton Foundation staffer Amitabh Desai forwarded an email with the subject line “North Korea invitation” to Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s then-chief of staff at the State Department.
“Dear Cheryl, we’d welcome your feedback on the attached invitation – would USG have concerns?” Desai wrote.
Four days later, Desai sent Mills another email. “Is it safe to assume USG would have concerns about WJC accepting the attached invitation related to North Korea? Thanks, Ami.”

More on this...

• Bill Clinton a drag on Hillary's presidential ambitions?

Mills responded, “Decline it.”
ABC News first reported on the emails.
Hillary Clinton, on the sidelines of the Democratic National Committee meeting in Minneapolis Friday, defended the process for vetting these requests.
Clinton admitted receiving “some unusual requests” but said “they all went through the process” and, ultimately, the invitations in question were declined.
Though in a curious aside, the 2016 Democratic presidential frontrunner noted her husband went to North Korea in 2009 to rescue reporters.
“You might not recall but [President] Obama sent Bill to North Korea to rescue journalists who were captured,” Clinton told reporters. “Every offer we made was rebuffed and we offered many people to go and finally North Koreans said if Bill comes, we will give him two journalists.”
Clinton left the podium before any follow-ups could be asked.
In the case of the North Korea invite, while the foundation acknowledged potential concerns, the official followed up in early June after Mills said to decline it. Desai said the matter came from Tony Rodham, Hillary Clinton’s brother, and they would like to relay “any specific concerns” as Rodham was about to meet with Bill Clinton.
Mills responded on June 9, 2012: “If he needs more let him know his wife knows and I am happy to call him secure when he is near a secure line.”
The email exchange does not include much detail on the invitation, in contrast with the messages on the Congo request.
They show the speaking engagement in Brazzaville came with a hefty $650,000 speaking fee – one of numerous such engagements through which the former president has made millions since leaving office.
The catch: the event included the leaders of not only the Republic of the Congo but Democratic Republic of the Congo, Joseph Kabila – whose government has an abysmal human rights record. And Clinton, under the terms of the invite, would have to stay after the speech to greet Kabila and other dignitaries.
The Harry Walker Agency, which worked with the Clinton Foundation on coordinating speeches, recommended in a June 6, 2012 email declining the invitation.
“I anticipate the location for the event and the parties involved might give you pause,” Don Walker, the agency’s president, wrote in an email to the foundation.
“We have gently asked if the venue must be in the Congo, and if the Head of State involvement is necessary,” Walker wrote in the email. “They tell us that both are mandatory. For that reason we anticipate you will want us to quickly decline.”
From there, Desai forwarded the email to Mills, Clinton aide Huma Abedin and other State Department officials saying despite the issues, “WJC wants to know what state thinks of it if he took it 100% for the foundation. We’d welcome your thoughts.”
Ultimately, the engagement did not go forward.
“The emails speak volumes to the ongoing undercurrent that Bill Clinton would take money from anyone,” David Bossie, president of Citizens United, told FoxNews.com on Friday. He disputed Hillary Clinton’s claims that the State Department vetted every request the foundation made and argued the emails show “a pattern.”
Bossie said that while some Clinton supporters might use the emails to show the system set up by the State Department and the Clinton Foundation worked, the emails speak to a seedier side of the Clinton Foundation.
“If this was a one-and-done issue, I’d be like, it’s only once and they handled it correctly,” Bossie said, adding, “If their pushback is that the speeches didn’t happen and that it’s a great example of them doing a good job, I’d say, it doesn’t mean that they didn’t try.”

Biden 16 Cartoon

What if Hillary Clinton has been pulling the wool over our eyes for years?

What if former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been pulling the wool over our eyes for years?

What if, while she was secretary of state, she ran two secret wars, one in Libya and one in Syria? What if there already were wars in each of those countries, so she used those wars as covers for her own?
What if President Obama gave permission for her to do this? What if the president lacks the legal authority to authorize anyone to fight secret wars? What if she obtained the consent of a dozen members of Congress from both houses and from both political parties? What if those few members of Congress who approved of her wars lacked the legal authority to authorize them?
What if her goal was to overthrow two dictators, one friendly to the U.S. and one not? What if the instruments of her war did not consist of American military troops, but rather State Department intelligence assets and American-made military-grade heavy weapons?

What if Hillary Clinton just doesn’t care whether she has broken any federal laws, illegally caused the deaths of thousands of innocents, and profoundly jeopardized and misled the American people?

What if under federal law the secretary of state and the secretary of the Treasury are permitted on their own to issue licenses to American arms dealers to sell arms to the governments of foreign countries? What if Clinton secretly authorized the sale of American-made military-grade weapons to the government of Qatar? What if Qatar is a small Middle Eastern country, the government of which is beholden to and largely controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood?
What if the Muslim Brotherhood is a recognized terrorist organization? What if the U.S. has no lawful or military purpose for putting military hardware into the hands of a government that supports or is controlled by a terrorist organization?
What if the real purpose of sending military hardware to Qatar was for it to end up in the hands of rebels in Syria and Libya? What if it got there? What if some of those rebels are known Al Qaeda operatives? What if some of those operatives who received the American military hardware used it to assault Americans and American interests?
What if among those assaulted was the U.S. ambassador to Libya? What if Ambassador Christopher Stevens was assassinated in Benghazi, Libya, by Al Qaeda operatives who were using American-made military-grade hardware that Clinton knowingly sent to them?
What if the U.S. had no strategic interest in deposing the government of Libya? What if Congress never declared war on Libya? What if Col. Qaddafi, the then-dictator of Libya who was reprehensible, was nevertheless an American ally whose fights against known terrorist organizations had garnered him praise from President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair?
What if the U.S. had no strategic interest in deposing the dictator of Syria, President Assad? What if Congress never declared war on Syria? What if the government of Syria, though reprehensible, has been fighting a war against groups and militias, some of whom have been designated as terrorist organizations by the secretary of state? What if that secretary of state was Hillary Clinton?
What if Clinton had a political interest in deposing the governments of Libya and Syria? What if her goal in fighting these secret wars was to claim triumph for herself over Middle Eastern despots? What if it is a federal crime to fight a private war against a foreign government? What if it is a federal crime to provide material assistance to terrorist organizations? What if these are crimes no matter who consents or approves?
What if, when asked about this while testifying to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Clinton professed ignorance? What if it is a federal crime for a witness to lie to or mislead Congress?
What if the outcome of Clinton’s war in Libya has been the destruction of the Gadhafi government and ensuing chaos? What if that chaos has brought terror and death to many thousands of innocents in Libya? What if Clinton has failed to achieve any noticeable result with her secret war in Syria?
What if she managed these wars on an email system that was not secured in a government venue? What if she did that to keep her thoughts and actions secret from the president and from the State Department in case she failed to win the wars? What if she used a BlackBerry she bought at Walmart instead of a secure and encrypted government-issued phone?
What if her management of these wars on the private email system exposed national security secrets to anyone who could hack into her server or her router? What if the server or the router had been kept in the bathroom of an apartment of an employee of a computer company in Denver, Colo., and not under lock and key and armed guard in her home in New York as she has represented?
What if Clinton just doesn’t care whether she has broken any federal laws, illegally caused the deaths of thousands of innocents, and profoundly jeopardized and misled the American people?
What if the American people do care about all this? What will they do about it?

Evidence mounts that soon-to-be flush Iran already spurring new attacks on Israel

HAIFA, Israel –  An unsettling surge in terrorism by Iranian proxies has many Israelis convinced the release to Tehran of tens of billions of dollars in frozen funds is already putting the Jewish state in danger.

In recent days, rockets have rained down on Israel from Gaza in the south and the Golan Heights to the north, Israeli forces foiled a bomb plot at the tomb of biblical patriarch Joseph, and Gaza-based terrorist groups that also have a presence in the West Bank have openly appealed for aid on Iranian television. Israeli officials fear the terrorist activity is spiking as groups audition for funding from Tehran, which is set to receive the long-frozen funds as part of its deal to allow limited nuclear inspections. They say the international focus on Iran's nuclear ambitions has left its more conventional methods of attacking regional adversaries unaddressed.
"The nuclear context is just one aspect of the negative Iranian activities in the region," Emmanuel Nahshon, senior Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, told FoxNews.com. "We can see the demonstration of this on a daily basis in Syria, in Yemen, and in Iraq. We see it also when we see the [Iranian] support of Hezbollah and other groups who operate against Israel."
Last month, National Security Adviser Susan Rice admitted that some of the money due to be released as part of the deal negotiated by the U.S. led P5+1 “would go to the Iranian military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior that we have seen in the region.”

“The amount that Iran gives Hezbollah is not very much - around $200 million - not even 1 percent of Iran’s budget last year.”
- Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born Israeli expert

Aside from the soon-to-be-released billions, Iran’s finances will also be strengthened by the easing of trade embargoes that have seen a horde of major international business - many from P5+1 countries – rushing to sign lucrative deals with the ayatollahs. Earlier this week, British Foreign Minister Philip Hammond scoffed at the fears of Israel and many Arab countries in the Middle East, saying the deal would “slowly rebuild their sense that Iran is not a threat to them.” Less than 24 hours later, the spokesman for Iran's top parliament member said, “Our positions against [Israel] have not changed at all; Israel should be annihilated.”
If that remains Iran's intention, terror groups Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are showing a renewed eagerness to continue as its proxies. Four rockets apparently fired by the PIJ from Syria into northern Israel last week – two into the Golan Heights and two more into the Upper Galilee – were the first such attacks since the start of Syria’s bloody civil war more than four years ago. Israel responded with targeted missile strikes, including one which hit a car killing “five or six PIJ terrorists.”

Related Image

Expand / Contract

Joseph's Tomb, in the West Bank, was the target of a recently foiled bomb plot. (Reuters)

On Aug. 18, Iranian state TV broadcast images of a new, 2.5-mile tunnel leading from Gaza into Israel. Dug by the Fatah-linked terror group the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and seemingly competing with arch-rivals Hamas for a share of the imminently unfrozen Iranian funds, the terrorists made an unabashed appeal for more cash. In a segment translated by Palestinian Media Watch, the terror group's representatives said, "This is why we are asking [for money]… especially [from] Iran, which is a known long-time supporter of the resistance and the Palestinian cause."

On Tuesday, Israeli officials revealed that a joint Israeli internal security and military operation thwarted a potentially lethal bomb attack planned by the Islamic Jihad on visitors to Joseph’s Tomb in Shechem in the Palestinian-controlled West Bank, the resting place of the biblical figure revered by Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.

The pace of attacks, as well as the diversity of their perpetrators, has prompted speculation that terrorist groups are competing for Iranian funding, and trying to show they are capable of giving Tehran bang for its buck. The terrorist groups however operate on budgets that are tiny given the scale of Iran's financing capability.

“The amount that Iran gives Hezbollah is not very much - around $200 million - not even 1 percent of Iran’s budget last year,” Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born Israeli expert on the region who writes at www.middleastanalyst.com, told FoxNews.com. “If you want to stop Iranian support of Hezbollah you would need to have inspectors on the ground in Syria and Lebanon, the most dangerous of places, checking Hezbollah’s arsenal, bank accounts, bases, and Syrian bases which Hezbollah uses. I don’t see any UN force, or anyone else volunteering to do that.”
Paul Alster is an Israel-based journalist. Follow him on Twitter @paul_alster and visit his website: www.paulalster.com.

Anti-abortion groups demand Portrait Gallery remove Planned Parenthood founder bust

WASHINGTON –  Anti-abortion activists held a rally Thursday outside the National Portrait Gallery to demand the Washington museum remove a bust of Margaret Sanger, a controversial eugenicist who founded the organizations that later became Planned Parenthood. 

The modern-day abortion provider has come under scrutiny following the release of undercover videos that allegedly show employees brokering the sale of fetal tissue. Days after widespread protests against the group, E.W. Jackson, a conservative Christian minister and Virginia lawyer, led the rally in Washington urging the removal of the Sanger bust.
“You must remove the bust!” Jackson said at the rally in front of the Smithsonian museum. He later added, “If Margaret Sanger had her way, MLK and Rosa Parks would never have been born.”
The event also was organized by conservative group ForAmerica and a group of black pastors.
Sanger, who died in 1966, founded two companies that eventually led to the creation of Planned Parenthood.
GOP 2016 presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has publicly supported the movement to remove Sanger’s bust from the gallery. Cruz along with Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, circulated a letter to lawmakers calling the sculpture’s display “an affront broth to basic human decency and the very meaning of justice.”
Sanger, born in 1879, spent much of her life working to change federal and state statutes that had criminalized contraceptives. She was at the leading edge of the birth control movement. Her bust is part of the museum’s “Struggle for Justice” exhibit, which honors Americans who fought for the civil rights of groups that were disenfranchised.
But she was controversial because of her work in eugenics – the science of altering human population through controlled breeding and forced sterilization.
The Portrait Gallery, which has displayed the tribute to Sanger since 2010, said it would not take it down. A spokesperson for the gallery told The Associated Press that the museum’s displays include some people with “less than admirable characteristics.”
It also defended its decision to CNSNews.com and said the bust is in keeping with the museum’s goal to “see the past clearly and objectively.”
“Margaret Sanger is included in the museum’s collection, not in tribute to all her beliefs, many of which are now controversial, but because of her leading role in early efforts to distribute information about birth control and medical information to disadvantaged women, as well as her later roles associated with developing modern methods of contraception and in founding Planned Parenthood of America,” the statement read.
“Nonetheless, Sanger’s alliance with aspects of the eugenics movement raises questions about her motivations and intentions. The museum’s intent is not to honor her in an unqualified way, but rather to stimulate our audiences to reflect on the experience of Americans who struggled to improve the civil and social conditions of 20th-century America,” it added.
Earlier this month, demonstrators gathered outside the Margaret Sanger Center in New York, holding signs and demanding Planned Parenthood be defunded. The rally was part of a nationwide day of protest.

Emails show top Clinton aide discussed work for foundation, consulting firm while at State Dept.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee raised questions Thursday about how a top Hillary Clinton aide's fundraising for the Clinton Foundation and job at a corporate advisory firm intersected with her work at the State Department.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, questioned whether Huma Abedin's status as a Special Government Employee (SGE), which enabled her to hold four positions simultaneously, created conflicts of interest.
"How can the taxpayer know who exactly SGEs are working for at any given moment?" Grassley asked in a letter to Abedin and Secretary of State John Kerry. "How can the ethics officer at the State Department know?"
Grassley's letter was prompted by emails from Abedin's official State Department account obtained by Fox News that include messages sent ahead of a December 2012 visit to Dublin and Belfast by Clinton, who was then secretary of state. In those emails and others, Abedin discusses diplomatic matters as well as issues related to her work for both the Clinton Foundation and Teneo, a firm co-founded by a longtime aide to former president Bill Clinton.
In one e-mail, dated Sept. 21, Abedin was among the recipients of a message from Amitabh Desai, the Clinton Foundation's foreign policy director, about fundraising for a charity supporting a museum honoring former President Bill Clinton in Northern Ireland.
The message said that Hillary Clinton had instructed Stella O'Leary, the head of a pro-Clinton PAC to form a 501c3 organization that would be "flexible" enough to raise funds to be used in "whatever manner WJC and HRC wish in Ireland and Northern Ireland and not restricted to support only the current iteration of the Clinton Centre in Enniskillen."
Abedin responded, "HRC said she made no commitments to her."
O'Leary told The Washington Post that she had set up the charity, but it was currently "stagnant", and she could not recall discussing the matter with Hillary Clinton.
In another message, sent Nov. 30, Abedin attempted to arrange a get-together in Dublin for a small group of people on the evening of Dec. 6.
"Maybe we can all gather for drinks/dinner and HRC can come join for as long as she can?" Abedin asked in her e-mail. The dinner was ultimately attended by Clinton campaign donors, Clinton Foundation donors, and Teneo's CEO.
In another case, the Post reported that in July 2012, the assistant to a New York banking executive wrote to Abedin to ask for her input on whether the executive should take a job at Teneo. The paper reported that Abedin agreed to meet with the executive, who later accepted the position.
Grassley wrote that the emails, which were disclosed through a Freedom of Information Act request by the conservative group Citizens United, "raise a number of questions about the intersection of official State Department actions, private Teneo business, and Secretary Clinton’s personal interest in fundraising for the Clinton Foundation and related entities."
Abedin's role as Hillary Clinton's main confidante during the Democratic presidential front-runner's time as America's top diplomat has made her a key player in the ongoing investigation into Clinton's personal server and whether classified information was sent, received, or passed through it. Earlier this week, Fox News reported that an April 2011 e-mail from Abedin contained intelligence from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Security Agency (NSA), and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), which oversees aerial imagery, including satellites. That e-mail was later declassified by the State Department, in possible violation of an executive order signed by President Barack Obama.
Abedin has denied any wrongdoing related to Clinton's server or her status as a Special Government Employee. Earlier this week, Abdein's lawyer responded to another letter from Grassley with a missive of his own claiming the senator had "unfairly tarnished Ms. Abedin’s reputation by making unsubstantiated allegations that appear to flow from misinformation ... provided by an unnamed — and apparently unreliable — source."
Abedin herself issued a more diplomatic denial in a July 2013 letter to Grassley: "I was not asked, nor did I undertake, any work on Teneo’s behalf before the Department (and I should note that it is my understanding that Teneo does not conduct business with the Department of State). I was also not asked, nor did I provide, insights about the Department, my work with the Secretary, or any government information to which I may have had access."
"The bottom line has always been and still is whether the taxpayers are well-served by agency practices and spending," Grassley said in his letter Thursday. "No one will know for sure until the State Department is more transparent about how it operates."