Scott Brown leaves Fox after bristling at questions about launching campaign

It’s been obvious for some time that Scott Brown is running for the Senate, even as he grew annoyed with speculation that he was doing just that.

Fox News announced Friday that it has terminated its contract with the former senator, right after he formed an exploratory committee to run in New Hampshire. And that was inevitable: you can’t be a candidate for office and a paid television pundit at the same time.

What’s odd is that Brown kept getting annoyed when journalists suggested he was moving in this direction. Even if he hadn’t made up his mind, he was clearly moving in that direction.
I happened to bump into him at Fox a couple of weeks ago, and he was still steamed over a Feb. 18 Boston Globe story that began like this:
“Former US senator Scott Brown, a frequent presence on Fox News, is no longer under contract with the widely watched cable station, a development sure to fan flames of speculation about his potential US Senate bid in New Hampshire.”
The piece seemed fair to me, because it quoted a Fox spokesman as saying: “He is currently out of contract with the network."
Brown felt it was irresponsible for the Globe to publish without checking with him, though the story said he did not respond to a voicemail seeking comment. Soon afterward, Fox renewed Brown’s briefly lapsed contract.
Early in March, Brown clashed with Fox News host Greta Van Susteren over the same issue. Greta had tweeted: “I am told this is certain: Scott Brown is going to run for US Senate in NH.”
Brown promptly gave this statement to Politico: “I am not sure who she talked to, but it was not me. I know what the timelines are and when I need to make a decision, one way or the other. I will make my decisions in due course. Until I announce or file with the FEC, it is all just speculation.”
Well, maybe, but it was informed speculation. Senate campaigns don’t materialize out of thin air.
Once Brown got serious about challenging Jeanne Shaheen, he had to lay the groundwork for hiring staff and courting support in New Hampshire. It was not unreasonable for journalists to report on this.
Brown did not respond to my request for comment. But he tweeted that “I’ve enjoyed being a part of the Fox family. Their analysis & insight has helped hold politicians accountable for their actions, especially on Obamacare.”
Fox has been a good platform for Brown since his 2012 defeat in Massachusetts, just as many aspiring and temporarily sidelined pols use cable news deals to maintain their visibility. But he sure waited till the last minute to cut the cord.
Palin’s new media venture
Speaking of Fox folks, Sarah Palin appears to have lined up a new gig. Fresh off her CPAC speech and before her reality show starts, she has found a new way to stay in the public eye.
Says Capital New York: “Fox News contributor and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin will be launching her own digital video channel, tentatively called ‘Rogue TV,’ a source familiar with the project told Capital.
“The channel will be available through Tapp, the digital video service founded by former CNN chief Jon Klein and former NBC Universal entertainment executive Jeff Gaspin.”

White House rejects results of Crimea referendum as Obama, Putin talk again

President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke after residents of Ukraine’s Crimea region on Sunday voted in favor of seceding to Russia, with the White House saying it would reject the results of the referendum held “under threats of violence and intimidation.”
More than 95 percent of Crimea voters, who are largely ethnic Russians, approved splitting off and joining Russia, with more than 50 percent of the ballots being counted, the referendum committee said late Sunday.
The expected results came as Obama told Putin that a diplomatic solution can still be achieved but only if Russian military forces end their incursions into Ukrainian territory.
Obama also said the referendum would “never” be recognized by the international community and that the United States and its European partners are prepared to “impose additional costs” on Russia for its actions, according to the White House.
Hours earlier, the White House rejected the referendum results before the final tally, which was no surprise. But the message that Russia had intimidated voters was remarkable in its force and clarity, especially after weeks of criticism that Obama was being outmatched by Putin on the world stage.
“Russia’s actions are dangerous and destabilizing,” said the White House, in a statement from the Office of the Press Secretary.
The remarks were echoed across Washington, which is shifting its focus to deterring possible Russian military advances elsewhere in Ukraine.
Putin sent troops into the neighboring region days after Ukraine's pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted last month in a political uprising.
“The United States has steadfastly supported the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine since it declared its independence in 1991,” the White House also said Sunday. “The international community will not recognize the results of a poll administered under threats of violence and intimidation from a Russian military intervention that violates international law.”
In addition, U.S. officials warned that any Russian moves on east and south Ukraine would be a grave escalation requiring additional responses.
Secretary of State John Kerry called on Moscow to return its troops in Crimea to their bases, pull back forces from the Ukraine border, halt incitement in eastern Ukraine and support the political reforms in Ukraine that would protect ethnic Russians, Russian speakers and others in the former Soviet republic that Russia says it is concerned about.
Obama had already talked twice by phone to Putin, saying his movements in Crimea are in violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty, words the White House said he repeated Sunday.
Putin says he is trying to protect his country’s economic and other interests in the region.
In a call with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Kerry urged Russia "to support efforts by Ukrainians across the spectrum to address power sharing and decentralization through a constitutional reform process that is broadly inclusive and protects the rights of minorities," the State Department said.
It was their second call since unsuccessful talks Friday in London.
Kerry expressed "strong concerns" about Russian military activities in the southern Ukrainian region of Kherson, just north of Crimea where Russian troops appeared Saturday, and about "continuing provocations" in cities in east Ukraine, the department said.
A senior State Department official said Lavrov's willingness to discuss Ukraine political reforms was positive. But the official stressed that the Russian military escalation was of "greatest concern" and must be reversed. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private conversation.
White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Russia faces penalties that would hurt its economy and diminish its influence in the world if Putin didn't back down.
U.S. and European officials have said they plan to announce sanctions against Russia, including visa bans and potential asset freezes, on Monday if Putin does not shift course.
On Capitol Hill, members of Congress said they were prepared to enact tough sanctions on various Russian leaders, but $1 billion in loan guarantees to help the Ukrainian economy is on hold while Congress is on a break.
California GOP Rep. Ed Royce, chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, called the referendum “phony” and “a throwback to the Soviet era.”
“No vote occurring under military occupation deserves to be treated as legitimate,” he said. “This referendum is clearly unconstitutional.”
Royce also called on the administration to start “working overtime to help break Putin’s energy grip on Ukraine and eastern Europe.”
Washington officials also said the Crimea vote was not necessary, considering the new Ukrainian government has made clear its willingness to discuss increased autonomy in that region.
Russia has so far rejected the offer and the request to allow international monitors into the region to ensure that the rights of ethnic Russians in Ukraine are being upheld.
The White House said Obama asked again Sunday.
Earlier Sunday, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee accused the Obama administration of showing “wishy-washiness” toward Putin.
Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker said Secretary of State John Kerry is sending the wrong message by saying Putin’s military troops taking control of facilities in the Crimea peninsula was “not a threat” and “nothing personal.”
“Our administration has created an air of permissiveness,” Corker told “Fox News Sunday.” “We have to show more resolve. It’s not helpful. It shows wishy-washiness.”
New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez, the chairman of the Foreign Relations committee, told Fox News that the United States has to be more firm with Putin because he has “started a game or Russian roulette … and he will see how far he can go.”
The EU is also taking steps to increase sanctions against Russia over what many believe is a planned annexation of Crimea, as Moscow has changed from a wary partner to a diplomatic adversary in the space of a few months.
EU foreign ministers will decide on Monday whether to impose asset freeze and visa sanctions and, if so, who to target.
EU diplomats were working feverishly over the weekend to set up a list of Russian and Moscow-leaning officials from Ukraine who have been involved in pushing for the southern peninsula's secession and possible annexation. 

Karzai says Afghanistan doesn't need US troops

In his final address to Afghanistan's parliament Saturday, President Hamid Karzai told the United States its soldiers can leave at the end of the year because his military, which already protects 93 percent of the country, was ready to take over entirely.
He reiterated his stance that he would not sign a pact with the United States that would provide for a residual force of U.S. troops to remain behind after the final withdrawal, unless peace could first be established.
The Afghan president has come under heavy pressure to sign the Bilateral Security Agreement, with a council of notables that he himself convened recommend that he sign the pact. The force would train and mentor Afghan troops, and some U.S. Special Forces would also be left behind to hunt down Al Qaeda.
All 10 candidates seeking the presidency in April 5 elections have said they would sign the security agreement. But Karzai himself does not appear to want his legacy to include a commitment to a longer foreign troop presence in his country.
Karzai was brought to power in the wake of the 2001 U.S.-led invasion and subsequently won two presidential elections ---- in 2004 and again in 2009. But he has in recent years espoused a combatative nationalism, with his hour-long speech Saturday no exception.
"I want to say to all those foreign countries who maybe out of habit or because they want to interfere, that they should not interfere," he said.
Karzai said the war in Afghanistan was "imposed" on his nation, presumably by the 2001 invasion, and told the United States it could bring peace to Afghanistan if it went after terrorist sanctuaries and countries that supported terrorism, a reference to Pakistan.
Pakistan has a complicated relationship with the Taliban. It backed the group before their 2001 overthrow, and although now it is at war with its own militants, Afghan insurgents sometimes find refuge on its territory.
Karzai told parliament, which was holding its opening session for this term, that security forces were strong enough to defend Afghanistan without the help of international troops.
Karzai steps down after next month's presidential elections. Under Afghanistan's constitution, he is banned from seeking a third term.
He came to power in December 2001 following an international agreement signed in Bonn, Germany, and was confirmed by a Loya Jirga or grand council that selected a transitional government to rule while preparing for nationwide elections. He subsequently won two presidential elections.
Relations between Karzai and the United States have been on a downward spiral since his re-election in 2009, in which the United States and several other countries charged widespread fraud. Karzai in turn accused them of interference.
In his speech Karzai again urged Taliban insurgents to join the peace process, while accusing Pakistan of protecting the Taliban leadership. He suggested that Pakistan was behind the killing earlier this year of a Taliban leader who supported the peace process. No one has taken responsibility for the attack.
Throughout his speech Karzai spoke of his accomplishments over the last 12 years, saying schools were functioning, rights were being given to women, energy projects were coming online and the Afghan currency had been stabilized.  Karzai said that when he first took power his country was isolated and nothing was functioning.
"I know the future president will protect these gains and priorities and will do the best for peace in the country and I, as an Afghan citizen, will support peace and will cooperate."
Afghanistan's current parliament plans to tackle a number of key issues, including a controversial law on the elimination of violence against women.
Meanwhile the Taliban released two Afghan army personnel, captured during last month's deadly raids on two military check points, the Ministry of Defense said in a statement Saturday. The men were freed after elders in the region interceded on their behalf and the military agreed to hand over to the Taliban the bodies of their colleagues left behind on the battlefield.
The attacks on Feb. 23 left 21 Afghan army personnel dead. Several insurgents were also killed.

US plans to give up oversight of web domain manager

Like a lot of things Obama has done since he has been president, this act shows how stupid him and his buddies in the U.S. Government are.(Bailey)
The U.S. government plans to give up control over the body that manages Internet names and addresses, a move that could bring more international cooperation over management of the Web, but will make some U.S. businesses nervous.
The Commerce Department said Friday it plans to relinquish its oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or Icann, which manages a number of technical functions that serve as signposts to help computers locate the correct servers and websites.
The action is viewed as a response to increasing international concern about U.S. control over the Internet's structure, particularly in light of the recent disclosures about surveillance by the NSA and other U.S. intelligence agencies.

"If you hand over domain-name registration to someone who doesn't want certain classes of domains registered, then you're setting up a censorship structure"

Other governments have complained that the department's contract with Icann gives the U.S. unique influence over the Web, which it could use for a wide variety of purposes. In response to those concerns, the Obama administration is convening a process to create a new oversight structure for Icann when the current contract runs out in September 2015.
Alan Marcus, senior director of the World Economic Forum, said "the NSA tarnished the U.S. stewardship" of the Web. Mr. Marcus said the U.S. needs to relinquish control over the Web before new leadership can emerge. "There are real issues that get clouded" by U.S. leadership, he said.
The action had been debated among technologists and policy makers, but the prospect of the U.S. relinquishing control concerns some businesses because of the potential for censorship.
"If you hand over domain-name registration to someone who doesn't want certain classes of domains registered, then you're setting up a censorship structure," said Bill Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, which represents businesses.

Tom Steyer

HealthCare.gov shoppers may get enrollment extension

The Obama administration is planning a workaround to the health care law that would extend the March 31 enrollment deadline for health care coverage for some users if technical glitches prevent them from signing up on HealthCare.gov, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Under the plan, people who can demonstrate that they were unable to sign up for coverage before the deadline because of website problems would be able to sign up after March 31, officials familiar with the matter told the newspaper.
Details of the workaround are still being hammered out, including how long the special sign-up period would last and what documentation people might need to offer as proof they were blocked by glitches, the officials told The Journal.
On Wednesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius alluded to a possible workaround plan, telling a congressional panel that if potential enrollees were blocked from signing up that "they will have a special enrollment."
An HHS official on Friday declined to comment directly on planning for the workaround but said the agency would monitor HealthCare.gov's operations closely and "respond appropriately," according to The Journal.
Enrollment for the current year expires on March 31, and administration officials are hoping for a late rush of applications beyond the 4.2 million they claim have already signed up. That is particularly true for younger people, whose health is often good and whose participation therefore helps bring down the cost of coverage for sicker people.
Kurt DelBene, a former Microsoft executive who took over the management of HealthCare.gov in December, told The Journal that three site failures stemming from server problems between March 6 and 14 were brief outages that were quickly resolved. 
"We are confident that…we have enough capacity in the system to enroll everyone who wants to get coverage on March 31," he told the newspaper.
President Obama on Friday played pitchman in a 30-minute interview with WebMD, reeling off the toll-free telephone number for the program and repeatedly urging his listeners to check out its website, now repaired after its woeful debut last fall.
"We look forward to seeing more and more people take advantage as some of the politics of the thing get drained away, as people start feeling more confident about the website," the president told WebMD in his latest bid to spread the gospel about the law.
The president's remarks came as the GOP-led House held the 51st vote in 38 months to repeal or undermine the law. The measure calls for a delay in imposing penalties on individuals who fail to purchase health care under the law.
The vote was 238-181, with all Republicans in favor and all but a dozen Democrats opposed. The bill faces certain death in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Justice Department reportedly blocked FBI probe over Reid, Lee accusations

The Justice Department reportedly has blocked the FBI from launching a federal probe into accusations involving Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, leaving agents to work with local prosecutors to examine the evidence on the side. 
The Washington Times reported Friday that two local Utah prosecutors, one Democrat and one Republican, are now working on a wide-ranging corruption investigation. As part of that, they apparently uncovered accusations of wrongdoing by the two U.S. senators. 
But the Justice Department reportedly blocked FBI agents from using a federal grand jury and subpoenas to test whether they or other officials committed any violations. 
Both local prosecutors are speaking out, saying the claims should at least be looked into. Their offices are doing so, with some assistance from FBI agents. 
"Based upon what we know today, we were surprised that the DOJ ran away," Davis County prosecutor Troy Rawlings reportedly said. 
Rawlings, a Republican, stressed it would be "unfair" to describe this as an investigation of Reid and Lee at this point. But he said "we are not going to ignore the scraps of evidence coming in about them." 
Sim Gill, Salt Lake County chief prosecutor and a Democrat, also reportedly said the "very serious allegations" should be examined. 
The accusations stem in part from indicted businessman Jeremy Johnson, who reportedly claims he was asked to route hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions and payments to one of Reid's associates, in the hopes Reid would intervene on both a federal fraud lawsuit against him and on legislation allowing Internet poker. Reid never intervened on the lawsuit, but did back off his opposition to Internet poker. 
Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson, though, denied the allegations and said Reid always conducts fundraising in compliance with the law. 
"Mr. Johnson is a desperate individual who's been indicted on over 80 counts. His allegations are false and the flailings of a desperate man," he told the newspaper. 
Jentleson told FoxNews.com that the local prosecutors' complaints at this stage seem "like a total publicity stunt." 
Both The Washington Times and ABC News reported on the accusations. 
As for Lee, the questions reportedly involve Lee's sale of his million-dollar Utah home, apparently to a campaign contributor, for just $720,000. The home was sold in a short sale, leaving the mortgage bank to absorb much of the losses, and investigators reportedly want to know whether Lee provided accurate information about his personal finances. 
A spokesman for Lee said the transaction was "aboveboard." 
Representatives with Lee and the Justice Department have not returned requests for comment from FoxNews.com.

‘Very upset’: CIA sat on Benghazi investigation, US personnel fuming

Obama thinks that if nothing is said or done about this that the American people will forget all about it. Some of us will but some of us want, I for one will not. (Bailey)

American personnel on the ground in Benghazi the night of the 2012 terror attack are outraged after learning that the CIA's inspector general never conducted an investigation into what happened -- despite two CIA workers being killed in the attack and despite at least two complaints being filed by CIA employees.
Former Ambassador Chris Stevens, another State official and two ex-Navy SEALs working for the CIA were killed in that attack.
Many in the agency were told, or were under the impression, that an investigation was in the works, but that is not the case.
One person close to the issue told Fox News: "They should be doing an investigation to see what the chief of base in Benghazi and station chief in Tripoli did that night. If they did, they'd find out there were some major mistakes."
This source claimed an investigation would likely uncover a lot of details the public does not know.
Asked why such a probe has not been launched, a CIA spokesman said: "CIA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) always reviews carefully every matter that is brought to its attention, and takes appropriate action based on a variety of factors."
Still, at least two complaints were filed by CIA employees concerned about the attack, which began at the U.S. compound and eventually spread to the CIA annex one mile away. There is no question that CIA personnel saved a lot of lives; those on the ground that night continue to herald the heroism of the individuals who responded to try and help Stevens and others under attack.
Yet questions remain about the overall decision-making, possible destruction of evidence and warnings of an impending attack.
"There needs to be a CIA investigation ... there was a lot of things done wrong," one special operator said.
But a CIA spokesman said the OIG has already "explained fully" to the agency's congressional oversight committees "why it did not open an investigation into Benghazi-related issues."
"That decision was based on a determination that the concerns raised fell under the purview of the State Department's Accountability Review Board, and that a separate OIG action could unnecessarily disrupt the FBI's criminal investigation into the Benghazi attacks," the spokesman said.
The Accountability Review Board probe was ordered by the State Department, and the board reported its findings in December 2012.
But separate investigations haven't stopped the OIG from investigating issues before. Why they held back in this instance is a question starting to filter through the agents at the CIA. Fox News has been told some of the investigators initially assigned to review the Benghazi complaints are "very upset and very frustrated" that they were told to stop the process.
Some members of the Senate Intelligence Committee expressed some of these same concerns in their review of the Benghazi attacks. On page 15 of the Republican response on Jan. 15, it states: "... the committee has learned that the CIA Inspector General did not investigate complaints relating to the Benghazi attacks from CIA whistle blowers. Whether these complaints are ultimately substantiated or dismissed is irrelevant. On a matter of this magnitude involving the deaths of four Americans, the Inspector General has a singular obligation to take seriously and fully investigate any allegation of wrongdoing. His failure to do so raises significant questions that we believe the Committee must explore more fully." 
Fox News has also learned that the Senate Committee was told by the CIA that the investigation did not take place because it would interfere with the State Department Accountability Review Board, which was conducted to "examine the facts and circumstances of the attacks." While that review contained major criticism aimed at State Department officials in Washington, it didn't directly mention the CIA.
"Since when does the CIA defer to State? The ARB is in a total different agency anyway," one special operator said.
Former U.S. United Nations spokesman Richard Grenell also is critical of the CIA actions. "It's puzzling that the Obama administration is so reluctant to do a real investigation of the facts surrounding the Benghazi attack," he said. "The ARB conveniently never interviewed Hillary Clinton or her political team about what they knew in the lead up or how they reacted during the crisis. And now we learn that the CIA wasn't interested in conducting a real investigation either." 
The frustration within the agency is building over the fact that many see the CIA inspector general as their last line of defense internally. While the internal complaints are classified, Fox News has learned that besides questioning the actions of the station chief and chief of base, the complaints also question dealings with the Libyan security forces -- and include questions about the reliance on a group of local volunteer militiamen called the February 17 Martyrs Brigade for security and their likely participation in the attack.