Donation to Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State violated ethics agreement, report says

The Clinton Foundation was on the defensive Wednesday after disclosing that it had accepted millions of dollars from several foreign governments while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, including one donation that violated the foundation's ethics agreement with the Obama administration.
Most of the contributions -- which had not previously been detailed by the foundation -- were possible due to exceptions written into the organizations's 2008 agreement with the White House that limited donations from foreign governments, according to The Washington Post, which first reported the contributions. 
But foundation officials acknowledged that they should have sought approval from the State Department's ethics office in one instance. In a statement to Fox News, the foundation said it had received an unsolicited donation of $500,000 to its Haiti earthquake relief fund from the Algerian government in 2010. 
"As the Clinton Foundation did with all donations it received for earthquake relief, the entire amount of Algeria's contribution was distributed as aid in Haiti," the foundation's statement read, in part. "This donation was disclosed publicly on our website, however, the State Department should have also been formally informed. This was a one-time, specific donation to help Haiti and Algeria had not donated to the Clinton Foundation before and has not since."
The statement did not make clear when foundation officials found out that the donation violated the ethics agreement or why the foundation did not alert the State Department at the time. 
At the time of the contribution, Algeria, which has sought a closer relationship with Washington, was spending heavily to lobby the State Department on human rights issues.
The revelation that foreign countries with interests before the U.S. government were allowed to donate millions of dollars to the foundation could raise questions about Clinton's impartiality while serving as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. Earlier disclosures made on the foundation's website have revealed an increase in donations by foreign governments since Clinton left the State Department in 2013. 
The Post reported that rarely, if ever, has a potential presidential candidate been so closely associated with an organization that has solicited financial support from overseas. Clinton is widely expected to declare her candidacy for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination sometime in the coming months.

‘Locked and Loaded’: FCC primed for vote on Internet regs, amid 11th-hour drama

The Federal Communications Commission is driving toward a landmark vote Thursday on a sweeping plan that critics warn would impose a new era of regulation for how Americans use and do business on the Internet, even as 11th-hour appeals inject added drama behind the scenes. 
The so-called net neutrality proposal has been the subject of fierce debate, in part because the 332-page plan is being kept from public eyes. President Obama's vocal push for aggressive Internet rules also has raised questions on Capitol Hill over undue influence by the White House -- but House Republicans who had planned a hearing on that very subject said Wednesday they would postpone after Chairman Tom Wheeler allegedly refused to testify. 
"This fight continues as the future of the Internet is at stake," House oversight committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., vowed, in a statement announcing the hearing delay. 
For now, the plan is in the FCC's hands. 
At issue is a proposal that proponents say would ensure an "open" Internet, by growing the government's power to oversee Internet service providers and establish new rules to bar companies from blocking or slowing data. 
But The Hill reports that a vital Democratic member, Mignon Clyburn, is now seeking last-minute changes to scale back Wheeler's proposal. 
This puts Wheeler in a tough spot because the FCC is composed of three Democrats and two Republicans. The Republicans are likely to oppose the plan, and Wheeler would need Clyburn on board to push it through. 
According to The Hill, Clyburn would leave alone the most controversial plank of the proposal -- a call to regulate broadband Internet as a telecommunications service, treating it much like telephones. 
But she reportedly wants to strip a new legal category that would give the FCC additional legal authority over certain deals over back-end Internet traffic. 
Her requests may be in the weeds, but they have the effect of potentially complicating Thursday's vote. The two Republican members, Ajit Pai and Mike O'Rielly, earlier this week already urged Wheeler to postpone that vote -- and to release the plan so the public can review it. Wheeler so far has not agreed to do so. Wheeler needs a three-member majority to approve the plan. 
Asked about the report in The Hill, Clyburn's office said she would not comment "on any potential changes to the Open Internet Order out of respect for the deliberative process." 
Her office said: "Any reports about policy or position shifts when it comes to the item have not been verified or confirmed by her office. Commissioner Clyburn continues to advocate for strong open Internet protections for consumers and looks forward to voting the item on Thursday." 
Still, Clyburn's supposed requests may not be a deal-breaker. 
One FCC official told FoxNews.com there appears to be little sign of the vote being delayed. 
"They are very locked and loaded with this whole thing," the official said. 
Pai and O'Rielly, meanwhile, have made their position clear. Pai tweeted a photo of himself with the proposal on Wednesday, announcing that he would oppose it. 
While Wheeler and consumer groups say the proposal is necessary to prevent providers from creating slow or fast Internet lanes in which content companies like Netflix can pay to jump to the head of the queue, Pai co-authored a Politico op-ed with Federal Election Commission member Lee Goodman describing the plan as "heavy-handed." 
They said it would allow the FCC to regulate broadband rates; "decree" whether companies can offer "consumer-friendly service plans" like unlimited access to streaming music; and claim the power to force companies to "physically deploy broadband infrastructure." 
The commissioners argued that the panel was conjuring the idea of "digital dysfunction" in order to "justify a public-sector power grab." 
Wheeler, though, has pushed back on the calls for a delay. 
He tweeted earlier this week that the future of the "open Internet" is at stake, and, "We cannot afford to delay finally adopting enforceable rules to protect consumers & innovators." He also noted that the commission received "more than 4 million comments on #OpenInternet during past year that helped shape proposal." 
"It's time to act," Wheeler tweeted. 
Asked Tuesday about the call for a delay, an FCC spokesperson also told FoxNews.com that the 4 million comments amounted to an "unprecedented" level of public response. 
"In accordance with long-standing FCC process followed in both Democratic and Republican administrations, Chairman Wheeler circulated his proposal to his fellow Commissioners for review three weeks before the scheduled vote. The Chairman has seriously considered all input he has received on this important matter, including feedback from his FCC colleagues," the spokesperson said. 
Even if the FCC approves the plan on Thursday, the next stop may be the courts. Industry lobbyists say it's likely that one of the major providers will sue and ask the court to suspend enforcement pending appeal. 
Meanwhile, The New York Times reports that efforts by Hill Republicans to fight the plan with legislation appear to be fading. 
''We're not going to get a signed bill that doesn't have Democrats' support," Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., told the newspaper, though his office later pushed back on the notion that Republicans were giving up on the issue.

California Dems push to repeal 'welfare queen' law

WASHINGTON –  California Democrats are trying to reverse a decades-old state law that bars families from getting extra welfare money for having an additional child, describing the law as "sexist" and "classist" -- despite concerns that repealing it could compound the state's money woes. 
The so-called "welfare queen" law was passed two decades ago during the heyday of welfare reform. At the time, Democrats were in charge of the state legislature and Republican Pete Wilson was governor. 
Today, Democrats are still in charge, but the base of support for the law is fading.
State Sen. Holly Mitchell recently introduced a bill that would repeal the policy, which she says was initially engineered to discourage welfare recipients from having additional children. The problem, she argues, is that it didn’t work.
In fact, with the cap in place, California’s childhood poverty rate has climbed to the highest in the nation. For Mitchell, this is her third attempt at abolishing the “welfare queen” law.
“It is a classist, sexist, anti-democratic, anti-child, anti-family policy whose premise did not come to fruition,” Mitchell said in a written statement. “It did not accomplish what it set out to accomplish. So it’s appropriate to take it off the books.”
But Republican strategist Bradley Blakeman warned there could be repercussions to nixing the policy. 
“California is in serious financial difficulty,” Blakeman told FoxNews.com’s “Strategy Room.” “The law should stay as it is. It makes sense. It’s a good deterrent for parents to be responsible and not bring children into a world they cannot care for.”
Repealing the law indeed would cost California taxpayers. One analysis estimates that overturning it would cost an already cash-starved state close to $205 million just in the first year.
Coined in the 1970s when then-presidential candidate Ronald Reagan described the case of a Chicago welfare fraudster, the term “welfare queen” has evolved into shorthand for a poor woman with children she can’t support without government checks.
Nationally, President Clinton signed sweeping welfare reform legislation into law in 1996. The next year, then-California Gov. Wilson and state lawmakers collaborated on a program called CalWORKs which set grant levels, work requirements and other standards for people eligible for financial assistance. 
The family cap idea was pitched as a way to cut down on government dependency. But Mary Theroux, senior vice president of The Independent Institute, told FoxNews.com that the data doesn’t add up. 
She said the current policy "isn’t even a Band-Aid," and, “They are dealing with symptoms, not causes.” 
Theroux isn't pushing for repeal, but rather, believes a better way to reduce the poverty rate is to tear down economic and educational barriers. 
California is among 24 states that have put family cap policies in place over the past two decades, according to the California Berkeley Law Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice. There are currently 15 states that have family cap policies, including Arizona, Mississippi and Virginia.
Under California’s law, welfare assistance is denied for any child born into a family in which any parent or child was receiving aid 10 months prior to the birth.
California, though, is the only state that grants exemptions based on the failure of three specific forms of contraceptives: IUD, Norplant and sterilization. The law says families that want to challenge the restriction must provide proof that their birth control failed. There are also exemptions in place for children born from rape or incest.
Some anti-poverty advocates like the California Latinas for Reproductive Justice say the government is “using the threat of deeper poverty” if recipients don’t use contraception.

Kim Jong Cartoon

Netanyahu turns down meeting with Senate Democrats

WASHINGTON –  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday turned down an invitation to meet privately with Senate Democrats next week during his visit to Washington, saying the session "could compound the misperception of partisanship" surrounding his trip.
Angering the White House and Democrats, Netanyahu accepted an invitation from Republican leaders to address a joint meeting of Congress on March 3 and speak about Iran. The GOP leaders did not consult with the Obama administration, which the White House called a breach of protocol.
Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Monday invited Netanyahu to meet in a closed-door session with Democrats during his visit. He declined the invitation on Tuesday and expressed regret about the politically fraught tone of his trip.
"I regret that the invitation to address the special joint session of Congress has been perceived by some to be political or partisan," Netanyahu wrote. "I can assure you that my sole intention in accepting it was to voice Israel's grave concerns about a potential nuclear agreement with Iran that could threaten the survival of my country."
Netanyahu said to meet with Democrats "at this time could compound the misperception of partisanship regarding my upcoming visit."
More than a half dozen House and Senate Democrats have said they will skip the speech, calling it an affront to President Barack Obama and the administration as they engage in high-level negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Vice President Joe Biden will be traveling and has no plans to attend the speech.
Obama has no plans to meet with Netanyahu, with the administration saying such a session would break with past practices of engaging with world leaders close to elections. Israel's elections are set for March 17.
Durbin said in a statement that he regretted that Netanyahu could not meet with the Democrats.
"We offered the Prime Minister an opportunity to balance the politically divisive invitation from Speaker (John) Boehner with a private meeting with Democrats who are committed to keeping the bipartisan support of Israel strong," Durbin said. "His refusal to meet is disappointing to those of us who have stood by Israel for decades."

African-American media group sues Comcast, Time Warner, Al Sharpton for $20 billion

LOS ANGELES –  A group representing black-owned media companies said two media conglomerates paid off Al Sharpton to make their merger look good.
While the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has yet to decide whether media giants Comcast and Time Warner Cable can merge as proposed, the National Association of African-American Owned Media group has filed an explosive $20 billion lawsuit against the companies – and MSNBC host Al Sharpton -- for allegedly discriminating against black-owned media.
The complaint, filed in California on Friday, also names an array of African-American advocacy organizations for partaking in the “devious” discrimination. The plaintiff says it is a group that seeks to “unite voices across the communications and entertainment industries to fight for economic inclusion, including equal access to distribution, investment capital, sponsorship, and other critical resources.”
The suit alleges that Comcast’s memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with non-media civil rights groups, including the NAACP, National Urban League, Sharpton and Sharpton’s National Action Network, further “facilitate Comcast’s racist practices and policies in contracting – or, more accurately, refusing to contract – with 100 percent African American-owned media companies.”
It claims that, to date, the only 100 percent African American-owned channel Comcast has agreed to broadcast is the Africa Channel, “with only limited distribution and channel carriage fees.”
“To obtain support for the NBC-Universal acquisition and for its continued racist policies and practices, Comcast made large cash ‘donations’ to the non-media groups that signed the MOUs. For example, Comcast has paid Reverend Al Sharpton and Sharpton’s National Action Network over $3.8 million in ‘donations’ and as salary for the on-screen television hosting position on MSNBC that Comcast awarded Sharpton in exchange for his signature,” the suit continues. “Comcast spent millions of dollars to pay non-media civil rights groups to support its acquisition of NBC-Universal, while at the same time refusing to do business with 100 percent African-American owned media companies.”
According to the suit, such payments contained an ulterior motive – “to make Comcast look like a good corporate citizen while it steadfastly refused to contract” with fully African-American owned channels, and also claims that the media conglomerate refuses to treat these channels “the same as similarly-situated white-owned media companies.”
“White-owned media in general – and Comcast in particular – has worked hand-in-hand with governmental regulators to perpetuate the exclusion of 100 percent African American-owned media from contracting for channel carriage and advertising,” the suit alleges. “This has been done through, among other things, the use of ‘token fronts’ and ‘window dressing’ – African American celebrities posing as ‘fronts’ or ‘owners’ of so-called ‘Black cable channels’ that are actually majority owned and controlled by white-owned businesses.”
The suit goes on to note that Comcast is a “major player in Washington, D.C. and has used its clout and money to buy approval for its acquisitions and sweep its racist practices under the rug,” alleging that Comcast’s chief lobbyist and executive vice president, David Cohen, is the “mastermind behind Comcast’s many conflicts of interest.”
A representative for Comcast told FOX411 that while they do not generally comment on pending litigation, this complaint represents “nothing more than a string of inflammatory, inaccurate, and unsupported allegations.”
“We are proud of our outstanding record supporting and fostering diverse programming, including programming from African American owned and controlled cable channels. We currently carry more than 100 networks geared toward diverse audiences, including multiple networks owned or controlled by minorities,” continued the statement. “Comcast has engaged in good faith negotiations with this programmer for many years.  It is disappointing that they have decided to file a frivolous lawsuit.  We will defend vigorously against the scurrilous allegations in this complaint and fully expect that the court will dismiss them.”
The National Action Network told The Hollywood Reporter that they have yet to be served with court papers, but dismissed the claims against them as “frivolous” and declared their intention to “gladly defend our relationship with any company as well as to state on the record why we found these discriminatory accusations.”
California-based attorney, Leo Terrell – who is not connected to the suit – says it has “no merit whatsoever.”
“The plaintiffs have no direct evidence of discrimination. The lawsuit is nothing but accusations without factual support of racial motivation,” he told FOX411. “Had the plaintiffs approached me for representation, I would not take their case.”   
In December, the National Association of African-American Owned Media also filed a similar $10 billion racial discrimination lawsuit against AT&T and DirecTV.
"It is appalling, deeply upsetting and totally unacceptable now and moving forward that economic exclusion of 100 percent African American-owned media continues to be perpetuated by these behemoth media conglomerates and their persistent, rigid refusal to contract with 100 percent African American owned media," Mark DeVitre, President of NAAAOM, said in a statement at the time.

Fiorina to Clinton: ‘Flying is an activity, not an accomplishment’

Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO who is flirting with a Republican presidential bid in 2016, took some tough shots Tuesday at the likely Democratic front-runner – effectively accusing Hillary Clinton of running for office on a record of air travel.
"Like Hillary Clinton, I too have traveled hundreds of thousands of miles around the globe,” Fiorina said. “But unlike Hillary Clinton, I know that flying is an activity, not an accomplishment.”
Fiorina spoke in Atlanta at a luncheon hosted by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp. It marked at least the second time in as many months she has gone hard after Clinton; Fiorina previously criticized Clinton during an address last month at the Iowa Freedom Summit in Des Moines.
On Tuesday, Fiorina said that despite Clinton’s extensive travel as secretary of state, “every place in the world is more dangerous today than it was six years ago."
She also went after Clinton over recent reports on how the Clinton Foundation had lifted its own ban on foreign donations, and potential conflicts of interest that could arise from that should Clinton run for the White House.
“Really? This is the best we can do is to have yet another decade of campaign finance scandals?" Fiorina said.
Fiorina, who ran unsuccessfully for Senate in California in 2010, is often overshadowed by other big-name GOP presidential hopefuls, like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. But she has been making the moves to prepare for a potential candidacy. 
Later Tuesday, Fiorina supporters announced they were launching a SuperPac entitled Carly for America to "help lay the groundwork for a potential presidential candidacy."
Fiorina's searing criticism was delivered shortly before Clinton herself spoke at a Silicon Valley women's conference, her first U.S. speech of the year.
Tuesday’s speech opens a stretch of public appearances in the next month ahead of an all-but-certain launch of her bid for the Democratic nomination.
The former secretary of state until now has steered clear of the spotlight -- her only two speeches in 2015 came in Canada last month -- choosing instead to huddle with advisers as a large field of Republican presidential hopefuls compete for attention.
Clinton was speaking Tuesday at the Watermark Silicon Valley Conference for Women in Santa Clara, Calif., an appearance before 5,000 attendees.
Clinton is scheduled to step up her public appearances in March, appearing at a gala for EMILY's List, which supports female Democratic candidates who support abortion rights, an awards ceremony in Washington for political journalists and a United Nations meeting on women's rights.

Former Marine found guilty in 'American Sniper' trial

A former Marine was found guilty late Tuesday of the 2013 shooting deaths of former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, the author of "American Sniper," and his friend Chad Littlefield.
It took an Erath County, Texas jury less than two hours to convict Eddie Ray Routh of capital murder. State District Judge Jason Cashon sentenced Routh to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Prosecutors had not sought the death penalty in the case. Routh's defense team said they would appeal the conviction.
"We have waited two years for God to get justice on behalf of our son," Littlefield's mother, Judy, told reporters outside the courthouse. "And as always, God has proven to be faithful, and we're so thrilled that we have the verdict that we have tonight."
Chris Kyle's widow, Taya, was not in the courtroom when the verdict was read. Earlier in the day, she had stormed out of the courtroom in the middle of the defense's closing arguments, whispering an expletive and slamming her hand on the wall as she walked out the door. At the time, attorneys were discussing how useful it would have been for Routh's mother to have told Chris Kyle about her son's history of violence. 
Routh showed no visible emotion as the verdict was read, while Kyle's brother and parents were among a group of the victims' families and friends who cried and held hands. They did not issue a statement.
Jerry Richardson, Littlefield's half-brother, told Routh that he "took the lives of two heroes, men who tried to be a friend to you, and you became an American disgrace." Routh had no reaction.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted "JUSTICE!" in response to the verdict.
Routh, 27, had admitted to killing Kyle and Littlefield at a gun range on Feb. 2, 2013 but pleaded not guilty. His attorneys and family members asserted that he suffers from psychotic episodes caused by post-traumatic stress disorder and other factors.
But prosecutors said Tuesday that whatever episodes Routh suffers are self-induced through alcohol and marijuana abuse.
In front of a packed courtroom, Erath County assistant District Attorney Jane Starnes and three defense attorneys made their case.
"That is not insanity. That is just cold, calculated capital murder," Starnes said. "(Routh) is guilty of capital murder and he was not by any means insane."
But defense attorneys contended that Routh could not have realized what he was doing.
"He didn't kill those men because of who he wanted to be, he killed those men because he had a delusion," Warren St. John said. "He thought that they were going to kill him."
Kyle and Littlefield took Routh, who had deployed to Iraq and earthquake-ravaged Haiti, to a shooting range after Routh's mother asked Kyle to help her son cope with PTSD and other personal demons. Interest in the trial had been partially driven by the blockbuster Oscar-nominated film based on Kyle's life.
Routh's attorneys also pointed to the gunman's use of Kyle's pickup truck after the shooting to purchase tacos at a drive-through window and run assorted errands as evidence of delusional behavior.
Had Routh been found not guilty by reason of insanity, the state could have moved to have him committed.
Routh's attorneys pointed out that they needed only a preponderance of evidence for jurors to conclude Routh was insane at the time of the shootings and therefore not guilty, a standard of proof well below what would be required to convict him of capital murder.
But prosecutors also noted that Routh had apologized to Kyle's family -- evidence, they said, of a guilty mind.
"This defendant gunned down two men in cold blood, in the back, in our county. Find him guilty," Erath County District Attorney Alan Nash said.
Kyle made more than 300 kills as a sniper for SEAL Team 3, according to his own count. After leaving the military, he volunteered with veterans facing mental health problems, often taking them shooting.