Senate Republicans are renewing efforts to learn why Huma Abedin, a top assistant to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was allowed to keep working at the agency under a special, part-time status while also being employed at a politically-connected consulting firm.

The new requests are being made by Iowa GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, following revelations that both women used a private Internet server and email accounts for State Department correspondence.

Grassley says the earlier requests to the department have been largely ignored, so the new ones have gone to the department’s inspector general and to Secretary of State John Kerry, seeking their involvement.

Grassley’s probe started in 2013, when he requested all communications between Abedin, after she switched from a full-time deputy chief of staff for Clinton to a part-timer, then started working for Teneo, a consulting firm that says it “brings together the disciplines of government and public affairs.”

A July 2013 letter from the department to Grassley, provide by the senator’s office, states Abedin worked full-time from January 2009 to June 2012. It also states Abedin did not list outside employment upon ending her full-time employment and that the department retained her as an adviser-expert at the hourly rate of a SGA GS-15/10.

The most recent available federal documents show the rate as $74.51 with a maximum pay of $155,500 annually.

“A number of conflict-of-interest concerns arise when a government employee is simultaneously being paid by a private company, especially when that company (is) Teneo,” Grassley said in the March 19 letter to Kerry that also raised concerns about Abedin and other department employees appearing to have been “improperly categorized” as special government employees, or SGEs.

Grassley says he specifically wants to know “what steps the department took to ensure that … Abedin’s outside employment with a political-intelligence and corporate-advisory firm did not conflict with her simultaneous employment at the State Department.”

The letter to department Inspector General Steve Linick also questions whether the department’s “excessive” use of SGE designations undermines ethics standards and if Clinton and Abedin’s private emails have the potential to impede the department from fulfilling Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, requests, over which the upper chamber’s Judiciary Committee has legislative jurisdiction.

Grassley says the department’s answers have so far been “largely unresponsive” and points to a November 2014 response that in part states “an individual may receive an SGE designation if he or she is joining the department from the private sector or is coming from another government position.”

However, Abedin came neither from the private sector nor another government position, Grassley argues.

“She converted from a full-time employee … with seemingly little difference in her job description or responsibilities,” he wrote.

Grassley also argues that the purpose of the SGE program is to help the government get temporary services from people with special knowledge and skills whose principal employment is outside the government.

However, Abedin essentially kept the same job and was subsequently hired by Teneo and the Clinton Global Initiative.

“It is unclear what special knowledge or skills Ms. Abedin possessed that the government could not have easily obtained otherwise from regular government employees,” Grassley wrote.

The State Department says Abedin was an SGE until February 2013, essentially doing the same job that she did as a full-time employee, advising on Clinton’s schedule and travel. It also states she reviewed department ethics guidelines but was allows to work part-time without a new security clearance.

Grassley also says the department’s current use of the SGE designation “blurs the line between public and private sector employees” and that department employees getting full-time salaries for what appears to be part-time work is “especially troubling.”

“The taxpayer deserves to know,” Grassley wrote.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid announced Friday he will retire at the end of his term, closing a long and controversial career in Congress that spanned four decades.

The five-term Nevada Democratic senator announced the decision in a YouTube video message.

Appearing with bruises on his face from a recent at-home exercising accident, Reid, 75, said the injury has allowed him and his family to have a “little down-time,” giving him time to think.

“We’ve got to be more concerned about the country, the Senate, the state of Nevada than us. And as a result of that, I’m not going to run for reelection,” the senator said in the video.

Reid, ribbing his Republican counterpart, added: “My friend, Senator McConnell, don’t be too elated. I’m going to be here for twenty-two months.”

Reid has been a controversial figure, and during his tenure as majority leader was blamed by Republicans for much of the dysfunction in the chamber. Republicans won the majority last fall.

“On the verge of losing his own election and after losing the majority, Senator Harry Reid has decided to hang up his rusty spurs,” National Republican Senatorial Committee Director Ward Baker said in a statement welcoming the announcement.

Praise from fellow Democrats, meanwhile, was effusive.

“Harry is one of the best human beings I’ve ever met,” Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said. “His character and fundamental decency are at the core of why he’s been such a successful and beloved leader.”

First elected to the Senate in 1986, Reid previously served in the House. He has endured tough re-election battles in 1998, 2004 and most recently 2010 — against Tea Party-backed candidate Sharron Angle.

Among other decisions, Reid will be remembered for allowing the so-called “nuclear option” in late 2013, when he unilaterally moved to change Senate rules to allow a simple majority vote to overcome filibusters for certain nominations. While procedural, the change was significant because it meant the Senate no longer needed the usual 60 votes to advance on controversial nominations.

Republicans quickly gloated that his seat would be a prime pickup opportunity in 2016. GOP figures ranging from Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval to Rep. Joe Heck and others could be interested.

Though Reid plans to serve out his term, his departure also touches off a leadership battle among Democrats. Schumer, Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and others would likely be in contention.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram contributed to this report. 

It didn’t take long for the major media to attack Senator Ted Cruz. In fact, they started before his Monday announcement that he’s running for president. On Sunday, “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd teased an interview with California Governor Jerry Brown who said Cruz is “unfit” to be president. His reason? Cruz doesn’t agree there is sufficient scientific evidence proving climate change.

Monday morning, the commentators at MSNBC were after Cruz. One compared him to 2012 presidential candidate Herman Cain and his “9-9-9 plan” and another compared him to Sarah Palin. Can’t win. No chance, some of them said.

Next for Cruz is the discovery of a first name he wasn’t given at birth: “extremist.” The media love to label conservatives, but rarely do they label liberals. To them no liberal is “extreme,” or extreme enough.

In our age of identity politics, you might think the media would mention Cruz’s Latino background, but you would think wrongly. Neither have they mentioned the comments by liberal professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School, who said this about the Texas Republican Senator: “He had brilliant insights and was clearly among the top students, as revealed by his class responses.” Cruz graduated magna cum laude from the law school.

Cruz’s coming out speech at Liberty University hit all the right notes, especially when he called for elimination of the hated IRS reform of the tax code and stronger support for Israel. He has a great personal story, which will resonate well with the conservative and especially evangelical Christian base.

Can he win the nomination and the general election with less than one full term as a senator? The current one did – twice.

Cal Thomas is America’s most widely syndicated op-ed columnist. His latest book is “What Works: Common Sense Solutions for a Stronger America” is available in bookstores now. Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribune.com

ESPN host Stephen A. Smith says that if every African-American voted Republican for one election, it would send a strong message to the GOP that their vote is important.

“What I dream is that for one election, just one, every black person in America vote Republican,” Smith said Tuesday during an appearance at Vanderbilt University, according to audio published by Breitbart.com.

During the 2012 presidential election, an overwhelming 93 percent of black voters supported President Barack Obama, while just 6 percent voted for Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

“Black folks in America are telling one party, ‘We don’t give a damn about you,’” Smith said. “They’re telling the other party, ‘You’ve got our vote.’ Therefore, you have labeled yourself ‘disenfranchised’ because one party knows they’ve got you under their thumb, the other party knows they’ll never get you and nobody comes to address your interest[s].”

Smith compared voting with “shopping around” to let store owners know they have to cater to you to win your business.

“We don’t do that with politics, and then we blame white America for our disenfranchisement,” he said.

TV personality Stephen A. Smith attends ESPN the Party at WestWorld of Scottsdale on January 30, 201 …

The “First Take” commentator is known for being outspoken.

Earlier this month, Smith suggested that Philadelphia Eagles coach Chip Kelly was racist for trading away black players like LeSean McCoy, DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin while keeping Riley Cooper, a white receiver who was fined by the team in 2013 for using the N-word at a Kenny Chesney concert.

“Chip Kelly makes decisions over the last couple of years that, dare I say, leave a few brothers feeling uncomfortable,” Smith said. “I think that’s fair to say. I mean, we’re sitting here looking at some of the decisions that Chip Kelly makes, and I’m like, what is up? What’s up with that? I mean, it’s like you’ve got to be his kind of guy, you know? And I’m like, well, Riley Cooper’s your kind of guy?”

Last year, Smith was suspended by ESPN after he made controversial comments suggesting that Janay Palmer, the wife of Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice, could have done something to prevent the domestic violence incident that was caught on tape in an Atlantic City elevator.

Smith later apologized.

“I made what can only amount to the most egregious error of my career,” Smith said. “My words came across that it is somehow a woman’s fault. This was not my intent. It is not what I was trying to say.”

Related video:

By Dylan Stableford

A federal judge sharply scolded a Justice Department attorney at a hearing on President Obama’s immigration executive actions, suggesting that the administration misled him on a key part of the program — and that he fell for it, “like an idiot.”

The testy court hearing was held Thursday in Texas by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen. The judge suggested he could order sanctions against the administration if he finds they indeed misrepresented the facts.

At issue is whether the DOJ misled the judge into believing that a plank of the Obama program — giving deportation reprieves to thousands of young illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children — would not go forward before he made a ruling on a request to halt it. In fact, federal officials had given more than 108,000 people three-year reprieves before that date and granted them work permits under the program.

Obama’s executive actions would spare from deportation as many as 5 million people who are in the U.S. illegally. Many Republicans oppose the actions, saying only Congress has the right to take such sweeping action. Twenty-six states led by Texas joined together to challenge them as unconstitutional. Hanen on Feb. 16 sided with the states, issuing a preliminary injunction blocking Obama’s actions.

Hanen chided Justice Department attorney Kathleen Hartnett for telling him at a January hearing before the injunction was issued that nothing would be happening with regard to one key part of Obama’s actions, an expansion of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, until Feb. 18.

“Like an idiot I believed that,” Hanen said.

A flustered Hartnett repeatedly apologized to Hanen for any confusion related to how the reprieves and work permits were granted.

“We strive to be as candid as possible. It truly became clear to us there was confusion on this point,” she said.

Hartnett continued to insist that the 108,081 reprieves had been granted under 2012 guidelines, which were not stopped by the injunction, and that government attorneys hadn’t properly explained this because they had been focused on other parts of the proposed action.

But Hanen pointed out that the 2012 guidelines only granted two-year reprieves and that three-year reprieves are being proposed under the program now on hold.

“Can I trust what the president says? That’s a yes or no question,” Hanen asked.

“Yes your honor,” Hartnett replied.

The states asked that Hanen consider issuing sanctions because Justice Department attorneys had made “representations (that) proved not to be true or at a minimum less than forthcoming,” said Angela Colmenero, a lawyer with the Texas Attorney General’s Office, the lead attorney for the states.

Colmenero said the three-year reprieves that were granted might have caused the states economic harm as the states may have already issued various benefits, including driver’s licenses, to immigrants who received a reprieve.

“There is absolutely no basis for sanctions here,” Hartnett said. “The government is absolutely trying to do the right thing.”

Hanen said he would issue a ruling “promptly” on what action, if any, he will take against the Justice Department.

The federal government has asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to lift Hanen’s injunction while the case is appealed.

The other states seeking to block Obama’s orders are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

FoxNews.com / The Associated Press contributed to this report.

While discussing money in politics on Wednesday, President Obama broached a topic normally confined to academic circles: A law requiring people to vote.

“In Australia, and some other countries, there’s mandatory voting,” Obama said while taking questions at the City Club of Cleveland. “It would be transformative if everybody voted. That would counteract money more than anything.”

Over the years, a variety of political scientists have mused on the idea of requiring people to vote, citing the consistently poor turnout in U.S. elections. Critics have questioned the practicality of passing and enforcing such a requirement; others say that freedom also means the freedom not to do something.

As Obama noted, however, other countries to do have mandatory voting laws.

In addition to Australia, the Associated Press reported that “at least two dozen countries have some form of compulsory voting, including Belgium, Brazil and Argentina. In many systems, absconders must provide a valid excuse or face a fine, although a few countries have laws on the books that allow for potential imprisonment.”

During his Cleveland remarks, Obama noted that many young people, minorities, and low income workers tend not to vote, and that some lawmakers want to discourage them from doing so.

Getting more people to vote would “completely change the political map in this country,” Obama said.

Also reports the Associated Press:

“Less than 37% of eligible voters cast ballots in the 2014 midterms, according to the United States Election Project. And a Pew Research Center study found that those avoiding the polls in 2014 tended to be younger, poorer, less educated and more racially diverse.”

USA TODAY

Obama Administration poured millions of US taxpayer dollars into Israeli elections, busing thousands of Arabs to Polls, but Netanyahu wins anyway.

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began working Wednesday to form a coalition government with nationalist and ultra-Orthodox Jewish parties after his conservative Likud party scored a resounding and surprising victory following a fractious election campaign.

Netanyahu said that he had spoken with the heads of five other parties that he hoped to bring into his government, adding that he hopes to complete the delicate task in “two to three weeks.”

“The reality isn’t waiting on us,” Netanyahu said in a statement. “Reality isn’t taking a break. The citizens of Israel expect us to quickly put together a leadership that will work for the sake of the country’s security, economy, and society as we promised to do, and that is what I will do.”

Netanyahu’s main rival — Isaac Herzog of the centrist Zionist Union — confirmed Wednesday that he had called the incumbent to congratulate him on his victory.

“I wished him luck, but let it be clear, the problems are the same problems, nothing has changed,” said Herzog, who attempted to make economic and social issues the focus of the campaign in contrast to Netanyahu’s focus on security. Herzog also vowed that his party would serve as “an alternative in every area” to Likud.

According to official results reported in Israeli media early Wednesday, Likud had won at least 29 seats in the 120-member Knesset, five more than Herzog’s centrist Zionist Union. No other party had more than 14 seats, and a party or coalition must have at least 61 seats to form a government. A key bloc that could sew up Netanyahu’s premiership is Kulanu, another centrist party lead by former government minister Moshe Kahlon that was projected to earn 10 seats in the latest figures.

Kahlon, whose campaign focused almost entirely on bread-and-butter economic issues, refused to take sides.

“I am loyal to my way,” he told his supporters, saying he would work to form a government committed to social justice.

Likud significantly outperformed all the polls in the run-up to the election, all of which had predicted a second-place finish for the party behind the Zionist Union. Netanyahu claimed victory early Wednesday in a speech to cheering supporters at party headquarters in Tel Aviv.

“Against all the odds we obtained a great victory for the Likud,” Netanyahu told the gathering. “Now we must form a strong and stable government that will ensure Israel’s security and welfare,” he added, in comments aimed at Kahlon.

At a rally of his supporters, Herzog had vowed to do his utmost to form a government and said he too had reached out to potential coalition partners. However, his effort to build a coalition was complicated by the possibility of having to rely on support from a new Arab alliance that was projected to capture 14 seats. But Arab parties have never sat in an Israeli coalition before.

Stav Shaffir, a leader of the Zionist Union, called the results a “clear vote of no confidence in Netanyahu.”

Netanyahu had ruled out a “unity” government with the Zionist Union that would give him a broader coalition, and Herzog had also been cool to the idea without explicitly dismissing the prospect.

President Reuven Rivlin will now spend the next few days consulting with the various parties, whose leaders will all offer recommendations for who should be prime minister.

The final weeks of the campaign had become a referendum on Netanyahu, a towering figure in Israeli politics who has spent more time as Prime Minister than anyone except the country’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion.

Netanyahu, who already has a testy relationship with President Barack Obama, took a sharp turn to the right in the final days of the campaign, staking out a series of hard-line positions that will put him at odds with the international community.

In his most dramatic policy reversal, he said he now opposes the creation of a Palestinian state — a key policy goal of the White House and the international community. He also promised to expand construction in Jewish areas of east Jerusalem, the section of the city claimed by the Palestinians as their capital.

Netanyahu infuriated the White House early this month when he delivered a speech to the U.S. Congress criticizing an emerging nuclear deal with Iran. The speech was arranged with Republican leaders and not coordinated with the White House ahead of time.

In Washington, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Obama was confident strong U.S.-Israeli ties would endure far beyond the election regardless of the victor.

The Palestinians, fed up after years of deadlock with Netanyahu, are now likely to press ahead with their attempts to bring war crimes charges against Israel in the International Criminal Court.

“What Netanyahu is doing and stating are war crimes and if the international community wants peace it should make Netanyahu accountable for his acts,” said Palestinian official Saeb Erekat. He said the Palestinian leadership will meet Thursday to discuss its next steps.

FoxNews.com / The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned Monday that a potential nuclear deal with Iran “could threaten the survival of Israel,” as he kicked off a contentious visit to the United States meant to build the case against such an agreement.

The centerpiece of his visit will be an address to Congress on Tuesday. But speaking first to The American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington, the Israeli leader underscored the dangers he said are posed by Iran, which he called the world’s “foremost sponsor of state terrorism.”

“Iran envelops the entire world with its tentacles of terror,” he said, displaying a map showing various connections between Iran and terror groups. He warned Iran could pursue Israel’s destruction if it obtained a nuclear weapon.

“We must not let that happen,” Netanyahu said.

Both the Obama and Netanyahu administrations, as a matter of policy, agree that Iran must not be able to obtain a nuclear weapon. But the Israeli leader has concerns that the framework of the current diplomatic talks could lead to an ineffective deal.

His address to Congress on Tuesday has meanwhile become the source of immense tension between the two governments. The speech was arranged at the invitation of House Speaker John Boehner, but without the involvement of President Obama. Some Democrats plan to boycott that speech, and the U.S. president has no plans to meet with the prime minister — though the White House insists this is out of a desire not to appear to be influencing upcoming Israeli elections. On Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry said in an interview with ABC’s “This Week,” before he arrived in Switzerland for talks with Iran’s foreign minister, that the administration did not want the event “turned into some great political football.”

But it appeared too late for that. With accusations flying on Capitol Hill, Netanyahu’s visit has plunged the rocky Obama-Netanyahu relationship to perhaps its lowest point.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News on Monday this is the “worst” he’s ever seen the U.S.-Israel relationship. He claimed critics are acting “in such a hysterical fashion” because they’re concerned Netanyahu will make a “compelling argument” against the pending Iran agreement.

Netanyahu, though, stressed Monday that the alliance is “stronger than ever” despite the current disagreement, as he gently mocked the recent media coverage.

“Never has so much been written about a speech that hasn’t been given,” he said. Netanyahu also said he meant no “disrespect” to Obama or his office in agreeing to address Congress. He said he “deeply” appreciates all Obama has done for Israel and did not intend to “inject Israel into the American partisan debate.”

But he said he had a “moral obligation” to speak up about the dangers Israel faces, and stressed that these dangers are, for his country, a matter of “survival.”

The prime minister’s address was to be bracketed by speeches from two senior U.S. officials: U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power and National Security Adviser Susan Rice.

Power, who spoke Monday morning, tried to ease tensions and offer assurances of the strength of the U.S.-Israel relationship. She said that partnership “transcends politics” and always will.

She stressed that diplomacy with Iran is the “preferred route” but the U.S. will keep its security commitments.

“The United States of America will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, period,” she said. “There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security.”

In Washington, Netanyahu has positioned himself squarely against the Obama administration on the issue of the Iran talks. The Israeli leader is expected to press his opposition to a diplomatic accommodation of Iran’s program in his speech Tuesday to Congress.

“We are not here to offend President Obama whom we respect very much,” said a Netanyahu adviser, who was not authorized to be identified. “The prime minister is here to warn, in front of any stage possible, the dangers” of the agreement that may be taking shape.

The adviser, who spoke shortly before the delegation touched down in Washington, said Israel was well aware of the details of the emerging nuclear deal and they included Western compromises that were dangerous for Israel. Still, he tried to lower tensions by saying that Israel “does not oppose every deal” and was merely doing its best to warn the U.S. of the risks entailed in the current one.

The Obama administration apparently is concerned about the details Netanyahu might discuss. An Associated Press journalist traveling with Kerry in Geneva tweeted Monday that Kerry said the U.S. is concerned by reports that “selective details” of the talks may be revealed.

Netanyahu considers unacceptable any deal that does not entirely end Iran’s nuclear program. But Obama is willing to leave some nuclear activity intact, backed by safeguards that Iran is not trying to develop a weapon. Iran insists its program is solely for peaceful energy and medical research.

The invitation to speak to Congress extended by Boehner, R-Ohio, and Netanyahu’s acceptance have caused an uproar that has exposed tensions between Israel and the U.S., its most important ally.

By consenting to speak, Netanyahu angered the White House, which was not consulted in advance, and Democrats, who were forced to choose between showing support for Israel and backing the president.

Netanyahu’s visit comes as Congress weighs legislation to trigger more sanctions against Iran if talks fail. Obama adamantly opposes that bill, but supporters could use Netanyahu’s expected warnings to build their case for it.

FoxNews.com / The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Reports of possible deal on DHS funding reignites chatter about Boehner ouster

Multiple reports that House Speaker John Boehner has cut a deal to pass a long-term funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security without ties to rolling back President Obama’s executive action on immigration has reignited rumblings about a Boehner coup.

The deal was purportedly struck as the House agreed late Friday night to fund the agency for seven days to avoid a partial shutdown.

At least one congressional aide said the deal between Boehner and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was to get enough Democratic votes in the Republican-led chamber to avoid the shutdown at midnight Friday, in exchange for Boehner’s promise to allow a vote next week on a long-term funding bill “clean” of the immigration issue.

Boehner spokesman Mike Steel told Fox News that such a deal doesn’t exist. Pelosi’s office has neither confirmed nor denied such a deal.

The calls for Boehner’s ouster appear to be coming mostly from the 50-plus, most-conservative members who formed the new Freedom Caucus. And they appear to be growing more restless.

The number of House Republicans who voted Friday night against the 7-day funding for DHS was 55, compared to 52 who voted against the failed 3-week funding bill earlier in the evening.

The party’s most conservative wing tried unsuccessfully in January, at the start of the 114th Congress, to replace Boehner.

A dozen House Republicans either voted for somebody else or didn’t cast a vote.

Ousting a House speaker is unprecedented. Electing a House speaker and thus trying to remove one is a “privileged” effort in the lower chamber. Privileged resolutions can skip to the front of the legislative line and not be sidetracked by leadership.

Jefferson’s Manual, crafted by Thomas Jefferson and still used today as one of the main sources for House operations, says the following:

“A Speaker may be removed at the will of the House and a Speaker pro tempore appointed.”

But it’s unclear how that process happens since no speaker has ever faced a challenge in the middle of the Congress.

Boehner opponents could write a “privileged” resolution declaring that the speakership is vacant. The House would then vote on that motion or possibly vote to table or kill it.

The closest the House ever got to this scenario came during the failed coup attempt in July 1997 on House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.

They tried to bring forth such a privileged “vacancy” resolution, but the coup fizzled after Gingrich learned of it and those who tried it realized they didn’t have the votes.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram contributed to this report.

Everything you need to know about the shady dealings of the Clinton family’s global corporate charity conglomerate

The national media has finally started to investigate the shady dealings of the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The results have been, well, entirely predictable. Here’s what you need to know.

What is the Clinton Foundation?

The Clinton Foundation is a nonprofit organization founded in 2001 by former President Bill Clinton. It seeks to bring people together using money to find creative solutions to global challenges. In 2005, the foundation established the Clinton Global Initiative in order to “convene global leaders to create and implement innovative solutions to the world’s most pressing challenges.” Hillary Clinton joined in 2013 after leaving the State Department. Since its founding, the foundation has raised nearly $2 billion.

What are its guiding principles?

Here are the foundation’s guiding principles, according to the website:

• We’re all in this together.
• Nothing truly happens unless a life is changed.
• No one has all the answers, but we can bring together the people who can find them.
• Results you can measure are the only results that matter.
• Empowerment is liberating and life-changing.
• There is always a way to be faster, leaner, and better.
• The greatest good is helping people live their best life story.

What does that even mean?

Good question. The Clinton Foundation is fluent in the language of feel-good corporate jargon. Many have suggested that these words, when arranged in such a fashion, have no meaning.

Why is the Clinton Foundation in the news these days?

Hillary Clinton is running for president, but due to her advanced age, inability to think on her feet, and unquenchable lust for money, she would like to avoid having to actually campaign for as long as possible. For the most part, the national press has seemed content to let her get away with this. However, a few enterprising reporters are attempting to legitimately vet the presumed Democratic nominee, and have begun to investigate the inner workings of the Clinton Foundation. In doing so, they’ve uncovered some troubling facts.

Oh, really? Like what?

The string of revelations began last week, when the Wall Street Journal reported that the Clinton Foundation had quietly lifted its ban on accepting donations from foreign governments. The ban was put in place at the request of the Obama Administration in 2009, when Hillary Clinton started her tenure as Secretary of State. Soon after she quit her job in 2013, however, the foundation began accepting millions of dollars from foreign government donors, including Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates.

That sounds pretty sketchy, but at least the foundation didn’t accept any foreign donations while Hillary was secretary of state. Right?

Not exactly. The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that the Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars in foreign government donations while Hillary was serving in the State Department. Most of those donations were technically allowed due to the many exemptions included in the so-called “ban.” However, at least one of those donations—$500,000 from the Algerian government—violated the ban, and was not reported to the State Department’s ethics office.

Oh, that sounds pretty bad.

Yeah.

What did the foundation say?

A spokesman for the Clinton Foundation admitted that the Algerian donations should have been reported, but basically shrugged and said it didn’t matter because the money was used to “save lives.”

What does that mean?

It’s hard to say. In the absence of further reporting, they probably expect us to just take them at their word.

Oh.

Yeah.

Who else donates to the Clinton Foundation?

Thanks for asking. The Clinton Foundation takes money from just about everyone, including many of the giant corporations liberals claim to despise, such as ExxonMobil, Citigroup, Barclays, Pfizer, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, General Electric, Monsanto, McDonald’s, Walmart, among many others. The Washington Post noted that many of the foundation’s biggest donors are foreign citizens who are unable to give money directly to U.S. political campaigns.

Okay, but they’re probably just gentle souls trying to make a difference. Right?

Not really. The Clintons have attended a number of events with foundation donor Victor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian steel magnate who has been accused of unfair trade practices. Frank Guistra is a Canadian mining tycoon and member of the Clintons’ inner circle who has donated tens of millions of dollars to the foundation. In 2005, Bill Clinton accompanied Guistra on a trip to Kazakhstan for a meeting with the country’s strongman president. After the meeting, Guistra’s company was awarded some lucrative mining contracts in Kazakhstan, and Guistra donated more than $30 million to the Clinton Foundation. Both men deny accusations of a quid pro quo.

What about the corporations?

Good question. During her time as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton helped secure lucrative foreign contracts for companies who had donated millions to the Clinton Foundation, including General Electric, ExxonMobil, Microsoft, and Boeing. In addition to the donations, these companies spent millions lobbying the State Department during Clinton’s tenure.

Wow. The Clintons have been in politics their entire lives. They must know how bad all this looks.

Yep.

Maybe they just don’t care?

Maybe.

Has Hillary even tried to defend herself?

Nope. Her aides have repeatedly declined to comment.

Is anyone else defending her?

Not really.

The New York Times politely urged the Clinton Foundation to sever its ties to foreign governments, but others weren’t so kind. National Journal’s Ron Fournier denounced the foundation’s decision as “sleazy” and a “clear conflict of interest.” Bloomberg’s John Heileman called it “totally insane.” Even Salon described the situation as a “ridiculous” “mess.”

Ouch. And she’s still giving paid speeches, right?

Duh.

Is it normal to be so rich, yet so obsessed with money?

It’s not unusual, but yeah, this is pretty absurd.

This seems like a big deal. Is the media treating it like one?

Sort of. It has received some coverage, but not nearly as much as Rudy Giuliani’s recent comments about President Obama.

Maybe Hillary shouldn’t run. Would a Joe Biden presidency be so bad?

Now you’re talking.

BY: Andrew Stiles

Investigators said Thursday they have recovered 32,000 emails in backup tapes related to the Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative organizations.

Though they don’t know how many of them are new, they told a congressional oversight committee that IRS employees had not asked computer technicians for the tapes, as directed by a subpoena from House oversight and other investigating committees.

That admission was in direct contradiction to earlier testimony of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen.

“It looks like we’ve been lied to, or at least misled,” said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla. at a congressional hearing Thursday evening,

IRS Deputy Inspector General Timothy Camus, who testified alongside Inspector General J. Russell George, said his organization was investigating possible criminal activity. He did not elaborate, other than to suggest a key factor is whether documents were intentionally withheld.

The emails were to and from Lois Lerner, who used to head the IRS division that processes applications for tax-exempt status. Last June, the IRS told Congress it had lost an unknown number of Lerner’s email when her computer hard drive crashed in 2011.

At the time, IRS officials said the emails could not be recovered. But Camus said investigators recovered thousands of emails from old computer tapes used to back up the agency’s email system, though he said he believed some tapes had been erased.

“We recovered quite a number of emails, but until we compare those to what’s already been produced we don’t know if they’re new emails,” Camus told the House Oversight Committee.

Neither Camus nor George would describe the contents of any of the emails at Thursday’s hearing.

The IRS says it has already produced 78,000 Lerner emails, many of which have been made public by congressional investigators.

Camus said it took investigators two weeks to locate the computer tapes that contained Lerner’s emails. He said it took technicians about four months to find Lerner’s emails on the tapes.

Several Oversight committee members questioned how hard the IRS tried to produce the emails, given how quickly independent investigators found them.

“We have been patient. We have asked, we have issued subpoenas, we have held hearings,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairman of the Oversight Committee. “It’s just shocking me that you start, two weeks later you’re able to find the emails.”

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., questioned the significance of the recovered emails in an exchange with Camus.

“So as I understand it from your testimony here today, you are unable to confirm whether there are any, to use your own words, new emails, right?” she asked Camus.

“That is correct,” Camus replied.

Maloney: “So what’s before us may be material you already have, right?”

Camus: “That is correct”

Maloney. “So may I ask, why are we here?”

The IRS issued a statement saying the agency “has been and remains committed to cooperating fully with the congressional oversight investigations. The IRS continues to work diligently with Congress as well as support the review by the Treasury inspector general for tax administration.”

The IRS estimated it has spent $20 million responding to congressional inquiries, generating more than one million pages of documents and providing agency officials to testify at 27 congressional hearings.

The inspector general set off a firestorm in May 2013 with an audit that said IRS agents improperly singled out Tea Party and other conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status during the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Several hundred groups had their applications delayed for a year or more. Some were asked inappropriate questions about donors and group activities, the inspector general’s report said.

The week before George’s report, Lerner publicly apologized on behalf of the agency. After the report, much of the agency’s top leadership was forced to retire or resign, including Lerner. The Justice Department and several congressional committees launched investigations.

Lerner’s lost emails prompted a new round of scrutiny by Congress, and a new investigation by the inspector general’s office.

Lerner emerged as a central figure in the controversy after she refused to answer questions at two House Oversight hearings, invoking her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself at both hearings. At the first hearing, Lerner made a statement saying she had done nothing wrong.

Last year, the House voted mostly along party lines to hold her in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions at the hearings.

Fox News’ Doug McKelway and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Neurosurgeon Ben Carson opened the Conservative Political Action Conference Thursday morning with a professorial speech that slammed liberal government programs and policies, previewing themes of a potential 2016 presidential bid.

“It really is not compassionate to pat people on the head and say, ‘There there, you poor little thing. I’m going to take care of all of your needs,’ ” he told the crowd.

“That’s not compassion, that’s the opposite of compassion. It’s making people dependent. What real compassion is, is using our intellect to find ways to allow those people to climb out of dependency and realize the American dream.”

Carson added during the segment’s brief question-and-answer period that he’s “not interested in getting rid of the safety net,” but instead “interested in getting rid of dependency.”

The former neurosurgeon ticked off a laundry list of conservative ideas including abolishing the IRS, protecting gun rights, and limiting government’s involvement in healthcare and education, with each getting increasing applause from the friendly crowd.

“I’m not ready for Hillary, but what am I ready for?” he asked, chiding assumed Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.

“I’m ready for a country that puts our Constitution on the top shelf, every part of it.”

He also spoke about his healthcare expertise, warning that Republicans need to come up with a strong alternative to the Affordable Care Act before the party works to repeal it. And he also showed support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ahead of his controversial speech to Congress next week.

While Carson has never held elected office, he rose to prominence within the conservative movement with a passionate speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2013. He’s performed well in national polling of a hypothetical 2016 field — a Real Clear Politics average of those polls has Carson in fourth place.

His CPAC speech is the first in the annual three-day event filled with speeches from conservative politicians and potential presidential hopefuls. The event is seen as an important launching point for likely presidential candidates looking to make inroads with the party’s base.

By Ben Kamisar

The White House has notified the Senate that President Obama has vetoed legislation authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline.

ORIGINAL STORY … 

President Obama, who for six years signed almost every bill that landed on his desk, is preparing to open a new phase of his presidency — the veto — as Congress on Tuesday sent him legislation authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline.

The Senate sent the bill to Obama on Tuesday morning.

To date, Obama has issued just two vetoes, fewer than any U.S. president since the 19th century. By contrast, in just one term, President George H.W. Bush issued 44.

But Obama’s sparing use of the veto is expected to change. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the president will veto the Keystone legislation later Tuesday, despite it passing with bipartisan support.

And with Republicans now in control of Congress, their efforts to chip away at the president’s health care law and other legislative accomplishments are just as likely to be met with Obama’s veto pen.

The question, for the Keystone and other bills, will be whether House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can muster the votes to override.

In a joint op-ed in USA Today on Tuesday, they accused the president of playing “politics” with his expected Keystone veto.

“The allure of appeasing environmental extremists may be too powerful for the president to ignore. But the president is sadly mistaken if he thinks vetoing this bill will end this fight,” they wrote. “Far from it. We are just getting started.”

So far, congressional leaders have not demonstrated they have the votes to override, which takes a two-thirds majority in both chambers.

The Keystone bill got 62 yeas in the Senate, but they would need 67 to override. In the House, the bill got 270 votes — but they would need 281 to override.

It remains unclear whether moderate lawmakers could be swayed to switch in the coming weeks.

To date, Obama rarely has used the veto in part because Democrats for six years controlled at least one chamber in Congress — acting as a buffer to prevent unwanted bills from ever reaching the president’s desk. That buffer is now gone.

A look back at past presidencies, where control of the White House and Congress was split during at least one point, shows a veto bonanza.

In the Clinton presidency, the president issued 37 vetoes in his two terms. President Ronald Reagan issued 78. President George W. Bush issued 12.

Not since the Warren G. Harding administration has the number of vetoes been in the single digits; Harding issued six.

The Keystone bill is as contentious an issue as any for Obama to fire his first veto shot of the new Congress.

First proposed in 2008, the Keystone pipeline would connect Canada’s tar sands to Gulf Coast refineries.

The White House has said repeatedly it will wait to make its decision about whether to let the project go forward until after a State Department review. It regards the legislation as circumventing that process.

When the bill reaches the president’s desk, it will start a constitutional 10-day “clock” by which the president must either sign or veto the legislation.

The White House has indicated Obama will quickly veto, without much “drama or fanfare.”

FoxNews.com / The Associated Press contributed to this report.