Mediaboss Marketing

Wednesday on his nationally syndicated radio show, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh argued former President Barack Obama actually did what New York Times reporthas accused President Donald Trump of doing regarding an FBI investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

According to Limbaugh, Obama had the FBI back off of an investigation into Hillary Clinton.

All right, heres (among many things) whats going on. Heres what Trump is alleged to have done here vis-a-vis the Comey memo. Comey memo says that Trump asked him to let it go. Let the Flynn investigation go. I can hope you see your way to let this go. He didnt do anything. The guy I love the guy, honest guy. Comey said, Yeah, I can tell you honest guy, good guy. And what Trump is alleged to have done is actually no different than what Barack Obama did in April last year when he made it known that he didnt want Hillary prosecuted.

In fact, the Obama situation is actually worse. While Trump indicated he didnt want Flynn charged, he did not order the case dropped, because its still going on. Trump indicated that he wanted Flynn not to be charged, but he did not order the case to be dropped. And the case continues. Grand juries have been impaneled now. In contrast, the FBI and the Department of Justice dropped the Hillary investigation just as Obama wanted them to, and they used exactly the rationales Obama used when he made his public statements.

Well, Obama, was saying there was no intent to harm the U.S., the degree of classified emails that Mrs. Clinton was trafficking in is very exaggerated. Obama went public with all this! He went public with his own exoneration and thought that the investigation should be brought to a screeching halt. And it was! Comey got together and they stopped the investigation, and that allowed them and Hillary for the rest of the campaign to say she had been cleared. Thats why they got so mad at Comey when he did the July 5th press conference, because back in April, Obama thought hed taken care of this.

The July 5th press conference was essentially to announce that there wasnt going to be a prosecution of Hillary because there wasnt any intent. This is what Obama had set up with public statements the previous April, and I know you dont remember the media being jacked up about this. I know you dont remember any anonymous sources leaking information to the media that looked bad for Hillary and Obama. You just greeted this with, Its the usual Democrat-media corruption. And theyre saying that this is what Trump was trying to sneak through here. He was trying to get Flynn to be cleared so that he could run around and say, Flynn didnt do anything. See? Im clear!

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Heres what the allegation is gonna be, if it hasnt already appeared the Drive-By Media. The allegation is gonna be that what Trump wanted to do was to have the FBI clear Michael Flynn, and then use the FBIs clearing him to argue that a thorough investigation had proved nothing bad happened here. All right? Now, why did they think thats what Trump would do? Theyre gonna say that Trumps plan was to rig the investigation and then exploit the fact that there had been one. By exploiting it, I mean, Hey, look, man! Look at this detailed investigation! It happened, and my buddy Flynns clear.

The Democrats would know exactly how to do it because thats exactly what Obama did with Hillary. If youre scratching your heads about this, maybe you remember in April of 2016, when everybody was wondering, Is Hillary gonna be indicted? Remember there was a drip, drip, drip? Every day there seemed to be more news about Hillarys illegal server and classified documents flying around, and every day people speculated who was behind this, and everybody concluded that Obama was. And remember the debates, the questions?

Is Obama trying to take her out? Is Obama trying to destroy her? Is it Obama does not want her to be president, doesnt trust her with this? Remember all of this stuff? And on the other side of it people were saying, Maybe Obamas trying to inoculate her. Maybe Obamas trying to just dribble this stuff out so that it doesnt end up hurting her a little bit here, a little bit there. But the conventional wisdom was that if he was doing anything, he was trying to hurt her, because it just prolonged everything.

I offer those simply as reference points. You might remember those things being discussed at the time. This is April of 2016. And thats why the Democrats would know how to accuse Trump. Theres no evidence this is what Trump was trying to do. Theres no evidence for anything here. We have allegations. We have a memo that may or may not exist. We have a memo that may exist without any context. We dont have anybody that can tell you what crime Donald Trump has committed yet to this day.

But Obama actually did, with Hillary Clinton, exactly what they are accusing Trump of trying to do through Comey at that dinner (where Comey only got one scoop of ice cream) to protect Flynn. If you think back to April 2016, there was no way they were ever gonna have Hillary Clinton indicted. Obama ran the DOJ, and he was running Loretta Lynch, and Obama was running Comey, and there was no way Hillary was ever gonna be indicted. You know it and I know it. But they used the fact that the FBI had ostensibly done a thorough investigation in order to clear her.

That was the purpose of the drip, drip, drip. The purpose in retrospect of the drip, drip, drip was to get all the evidence out there and then claim that it had been investigated, and then Comey magically appears on July 5th to list all this stuff that everybody knew. There was some of it that we didnt know, but he gets it all out there; then says, No reasonable prosecutor would proceed, and, bam! Shes cleared! The difference between Obama and Trump is very simple. Obamas pressure on the FBI to wipe the Hillary investigation off the map appears to have worked.

Regardless of what Trump may have said to Comey, the investigation of Flynn continues. The investigation of the collusion of the Trump campaign in Russia continues. So where is the obstruction? Theyre whispering impeachment, obstruction of justice, violation of this and that. Where is it? The investigations are ongoing elsewhere. The House Democrats announced a new one today! Pencil Neck went out there, Adam Schiff, and said, You know, were not gonna wait for a special counsel. Were gonna do a special commission here in the House!

So theyve launched another investigation. Investigations arent being shut down. Some people, as I was saying, dont want to sit around and wait for impeachment. They want whatever is gonna happen here to happen before the 2018 midterms. So there are people suggesting and one of them is Ross Douthat of the New York Times, quote-unquote, conservative columnist there. His suggestion and many have now echoed it is (paraphrased), Well, use the 25th Amendment! Thats how we get rid of Trump. We dont have to worry about whether Republicans will join us now.

Just use the 25th Amendment. Whats the 25th Amendment say? The 25th Amendment says that the cabinet, the presidents cabinet can certify the presidents insane mentally deranged, deluded, mentally unsound and get rid of him on the basis that hes not all there. On the golf course over this weekend and the whole subject of impeachment came up. I said, I dont necessarily think that although I wouldnt be surprised. I wouldnt be surprised with the way theyre all setting this up. Theyre trying to claim, Trump is unbalanced anyway! He never has been all there.

So there are many areas here at which theyre aiming at Trump. Now, Andy McCarthy has written a column about this Obama precedent that I just talked about, and I want to give you a couple of paragraphs of this piece here just to batten this down because this is important. What theyre accusing Trump of doing has already happened, and it was Obama protecting Hillary and clearing her in the campaign year 2016.

April 10, 2016 President Obama said Sunday that Hillary Clinton showed carelessness by using a private email server, but he also strongly defended his former secretary of state, saying she did not endanger national security Again, intent is not an element of the criminal statute. Its been totally made up by Comey. The statute does not require intent in order for it to be violated. Comey just made it up and attached it, and Obama used it before Comey did. On April 10, 2016, Obama said publicly Hillary had not intended to endanger national security.

Of course not!

Shes a great Democrat. Shes a secretary of state. Shes from the Clinton dynasty. There is no way Hillary Clinton would intend to endanger national security. Come on, people, Obama said (paraphrased), Who are we talking about here? Are we serious? Mrs. Clinton, Huma Abedin would want to purposely damage national security? Thats the route they took. Obama suggested that in the greater scheme of things the importance of what Hillary had done here had been way, way overestimated; way, way too amplified.

She wasnt trying to traffic in national security! She wasnt trying to endanger the United States of America. She wasnt doing half the stuff shes been alleged to do. He said all this publicly and next thing we knew, July 5th, Comey publicly stated (in almost exact words that Obama had used back in April) that Clinton had been extremely careless. Obama said she had shown carelessness. Comey said Hillary had been extremely careless in using a private email server to handle classified information.

But Comey insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security which, again, is not an element of the statute. So you see the pattern? Obama goes public. (paraphrased) Hey! She didnt intend anything here. She was just She showed carelessness. July, Comey: Hillary was extremely careless, but she didnt intend to endanger national security. Comey acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via her server, but he suggested that in the greater scheme of things, it was just a small percentage of the emails involved. Just like Obama said, Its been so overstated.

So if anybodys been working together here to clear a perp, it is James Comey and Barack Obama in April and through July of 2016 and since that is what happened, the Democrats and the media are now projecting on Donald Trump that which they did. And they are accusing him of wanting to do what they did and claiming that Trumps desire and effort to try to do this constitutes obstruction of justice and is thus an impeachable offense.

And yet at this very moment, nobody can detail for any of us a single crime Trump has committed, other than winning an election that he was supposed to lose in a landslide, unseating the popular (snorts) Hillary Clinton, whose turn it was and who openly, in his inaugural address, threatened the Washington establishment and told them their days were over. Theres no mystery why we are here today. Its been one of the easiest things to predict.

And I have to tell you, Ive been saying all week that one of the major things about this that troubles me is that either Trump or his people didnt even understand the scope of what they had done and what they were doing in terms of being able to accurately predict the establishments reaction. They were just not gonna roll over. These are not the people that accept the results of an election. They just dont. And this is not the first time in our history that they have acted this way. Florida 2000. They just dont accept the results of elections when they lose them.

So, anyway, July 5th, the case against Hillary is dismissed. Could there be a more striking set of parallels, asks Andy McCarthy? A cynic might say that Obama had clearly signaled to the FBI and the Justice Department that he did not want Mrs. Clinton to be charged with a crime, and that, with this not-so-subtle pressure in the air, the presidents subordinates dropped the case exactly what Obama wanted, relying precisely on Obamas stated rationale.

And the media could not have cared less about actual obstruction, about actual interference. And of course they couldnt have cared less, because this is the outcome they wanted. Mrs. Clinton cleared, free as a bird, as the nominee of the Democrat Party.

Visit link:
Obama Actually Did What Trump Is Accused Of Doing

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The Salton Sea, at 35 miles long by 15 miles wide, andup to 45 feet deep, is currently Californias largest lake. For millennia, it has gone through 400500 year cycles of filling up and then drying-out.

The only reason it is a lake today is that the California Development Companyin 1905 tried to reduce silt buildup in the Colorado River by cutting a notch in the rivers bank. But the notch quickly expanded and caused a two-year flood that filled the entire dry Salton Basin, which is just 5 feet higher than Death Valley, Americas lowest point.

With California, Nevada and Arizona continually fighting over the allocation of Colorado River water for the last century, the only reason the Salton Sea did not dry up again and drive away migratorybird populations was due to irrigation runoff from Imperial Valley farmers.

The bird population has been protected over the last decade by environmentalists, who negotiated a temporary agreement with the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), holder of the largest Colorado River water entitlement, to send some irrigation water to Southern California coastal cities through January 2018.

The Imperial Irrigation District also agreed under the Quantification Settlement Agreement in 2003 to sell increasing amounts of water to the Coachella Valley Water District and the San Diego County Water Authority. Water deliveries totaled 141,000 acre-feet in 2016, but will jump to 303,000 acre-feet by 2026.

Environmentalists tried to force a $9 billion agreement with IID in 2007 that would have pumped water to a series of new dikes and canals to cut dust pollution from the drying lake bed. The real goal was to create massive new saltwater ponds to expand the habitat of marsh birds anddesert pupfish.

But the Great Recession killed the grandiose plan. The new Salton Sea Management Program Phase I: 10-Year Plan,signed in August, but only quietly released in March, features an effort to build shallow ponds to double the wildlife and reduce dust storms from the dry Salton Sea shoreline. The plan sets a short-termpond-buildinggoal of 12,000 acres and medium-term goal of up to 25,000 acres at an estimated cost of $383 million.

The so-called environmental mitigation plan will lead to a short-term expansion of Salton Sea wetlands to support an expansion of bird and fish habitat. But spreading the un-natural water surface across a wider area will also accelerate the natural evaporation of the Salton Sea.

Read more from the original source:
Obama & Jerry Brown Hid Salton Sea Water Deal Until After ...

By Daniel Shapiro By Daniel Shapiro May 19

Daniel Shapirois a distinguished visiting fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University. He served as U.S. ambassador to Israel from 2011 until the end of the Obama administration.

TEL AVIVWhat makes the United States a good ally to Israel? What makes a president of the United States a good partner?

I pondered these questions frequently during nearly six years as President Barack Obamas ambassador to Israel, and they have renewed relevance as President Trump prepares to undertake his first visit here. The answers which have less to do with policy, and more to do with personal qualities and management may be less obvious than they appear.

Obama, of course, had well-documented challenges both in his relationship with his counterpart, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and his perception among the Israeli public. Real policy differences over Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank and the terms of the nuclear deal with Iran caused innumerable disagreements, many of them quite public. But during my time representing the United States here, I found that the caricature of universal Israeli hostility to Obama was overstated. On his own visit to Israel in 2013, he made a very positive impression on the Israeli public as a friend who was deeply committed to their well-being and security.

But it was never hard to find Israelis who believed (mistakenly) that Obama was genuinely unfriendly to Israel; many considered him aloof, distant and naive about the Middle East. A final dispute over the United States decision not to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution criticizing Israeli settlements at the end of last year, according to a January 2017 poll conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute, drove the number of Israelis calling Obama unfriendly to Israel up to 57 percent.

So after eight years of often tense relations, some right-wing Israelis heralded Trumps surprise election in November in nearly messianic terms: the arrival of a president who at last would support Israel unconditionally and not pressure the country to limit settlement growth or make concessions to the Palestinians. Naftali Bennett, leader of the right-wing Jewish Home party, declared, Trumps victory is an opportunity for Israel to immediately retract the notion of a Palestinian state.

But only a few months into Trumps term, and after the events of recent days, Israelis already seem to be wondering how well this change will work out for them.

[Trump is dividing American Jews over domestic politics, not Israel]

The early perceptions that Trump would reverse all of Obamas policy decisions and never challenge Israel very quickly proved inaccurate. So far, his administration has embarked on a much more traditional approach of seeking to restrain Israeli settlements, curtail Palestinian violence and incitement, and revive Israeli-Palestinian negotiations toward a two-state solution, with the support of key Arab states. Indeed, some of the same Israelis who praised Trump now criticize him for his friendly meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas or his failure to quickly move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. Israels deputy foreign minister, Tzipi Hotovely, warned Trump last weekend not to divide Jerusalem, while urging that the embassy be moved. On Iran, Trump has passed up opportunities to scrap the nuclear deal, opting to maintain its essential framework.

The video, published on the YouTube page of Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat, suggests President Obama sold out Israel and embraced radical Islam and Iran. It goes on to suggest that Israelis can't wait for the presidency of Donald Trump who they believe will move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. (YouTube/Nir Barkat)

Israelis do appreciate Trumps tougher rhetorical approach to Iran, his expressed antagonism toward Islamic extremists and his cozy relationship with moderate Sunni Arab states, such as Trumps first stop on this trip, Saudi Arabia. There has been much enthusiasm in Israel about Trumps campaign statements, his advisers, even his Jewish family members. The Israel Democracy Institute poll in January found that 69 percent of Israelis expected Trump to be friendly toward Israel. Even as concerns have crept into the thinking of right-leaning Israelis, Netanyahu has repeatedly praised Trump as a true friend.

With Obama, Israelis may not always have gotten everything they wanted. But they always got consistency. Obama held as a firm principle the idea that the U.S. commitment to Israels security was unconditional. We and the Israelis could argue (and did) about issues we disagreed on Obama always told those of us on his team that he deemed the relationship mature enough and durable enough to withstand such differences but they needed to know that the United States was a reliable ally when it mattered most. And he delivered. Our joint research and development and U.S. funding produced dramatic breakthroughs in Israeli missile defense, including the lifesaving Iron Dome system. We signed the largest-ever military assistance package, worth $38billion, enabling Israel to outfit its air force with advanced F-35 aircraft and securing its regional military advantage. The United States gave Israel full backing to defend itself, whether against rocket and tunnel attacks by Hamas in Gaza or attempts to smuggle dangerous weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

But even more than these dramatic examples, what Israeli security officials told me they came to appreciate was Obamas style of leadership: steady, thoughtful, knowledgeable. They knew that when a sensitive matter was raised with him that required U.S. support from expanding joint missile defense capabilities, to pooling our intelligence resources, to supporting Israels ability and legitimacy to conduct military operations in Syria to interdict weapons shipments to Hezbollah he had the maturity, the discipline and the judgment to reach well-informed decisions that benefited Israels security. The result was a period of unprecedented intimacy between our militaries and intelligence services. That doesnt mean we always agreed, or that leaks and other communications snafus never occurred. Both sides were frustrated, for example, by unauthorized leaks regarding Israeli military operations in Syria, and U.S. diplomatic strategy on Iran. But I was struck by the depth of appreciation that senior Israeli military officers and intelligence officials expressed for Obamas contributions to Israels security, often drawing a contrast with sentiments expressed by their politicians or the public. Amos Gilad, a longtime senior defense official who recently retired from government service, told me: Its easy to criticize Obama. But on the military front, the relationship was incredible.

Contrast that with the emerging portrait of Trump. His unpredictability, which plays out daily on his Twitter feed, was already a source of anxiety even before the recent revelations. Israelis now have to ask which Trump will show up for work each day the friend who pledges his loyalty or the adolescent who can lash out at allies such as Australia and Canada, and perhaps one day Israel? His lack of knowledge, compounded by his aversion to reading and short attention span, means he will not be prepared when issues critical to Israels security are brought to him for decision. His carelessness with sensitive Israeli information, including, reportedly, his shocking impulse to share it with Russian officials without Israels permission, has shaken the confidence of the Israeli intelligence services in the reliability of the United States as a partner. And his reputation as a president indifferent to democratic values and institutions and enamored of authoritarian leaders is harming the United States standing globally, which is never good for Israel. Israelis say that when the United States catches a cold, they get a fever.

[Donald Trump is wicked. As a rabbi, I had to protest his AIPAC speech.]

Israeli officials, taking no chances on souring the relationship, are being cautious not to be quoted expressing their concerns, especially in the run-up to Trumps visit. And relations between the militaries and intelligence services remain close and professional. But off the record, officials are beginning to acknowledge that something has changed. The Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth this past week quoted an Israeli intelligence official as saying: If Trump, even if out of naivete or a lack of knowledge, did leak information to the Russians, there is now a significant risk to sources we have devoted years to acquiring and to work methods We need to reevaluate whether and which information we share with the Americans. Thats a significant blow to the confidence our alliance depends on.

This coming week, Israelis will have the chance to observe Trump up close when he visits. Will they like what they see, and appreciate the undoubtedly friendly sentiments he will express and his emphasis on areas of policy agreement? Or will he reinforce their worries that the United States, their best ally, is now in the hands of an erratic, unreliable leader?

Israels late president, Shimon Peres, liked to quote the advice his mentor, David Ben-Gurion, gave President John F. Kennedy when they met following JFKs election: The best way you can help Israel, Ben-Gurion told him, is by being a great President of the United States.

I hear the anxiety of Israelis, who wonder what will become of their alliance with the United States when we have a president who strays so far from Ben-Gurions standard.

Read more:

Palestinians are rewarding terrorists. The U.S. should stop enabling them.

Confessions of an Israeli traitor

Why Id rather my son didnt wave the Israeli flag for Independence Day

Follow this link:
Israelis cheered for Trump. But they may miss Obama more than ...

After two weeks of what one Washington Post writer calls "nearly unrelenting disaster ofbad decisions and bad news," Donald Trump embarked on his first overseas trip as president to visitSaudi Arabia on Saturday.

Some supporters and conservative websitesexultedas soon ashe stepped off the plane quick to contrast it with a similar meeting at the start of Obama'spresidency.

Play Video Don't Play

Play Video Don't Play

Previous slide Next slide

US President Donald Trump and White House officials take part in a ceremonial sword dance in Saudi Arabia.

Play Video Don't Play

North Korea's program to develop a nuclear-armed Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile is accelerating.

Play Video Don't Play

Francesco Marchetti, 54, has died along with two other mountaineers in their bid to climb the highest peak in the world.

Play Video Don't Play

Dozens of graduates walk out as US Vice President Mike Pence began his address at Notre Dame's commencement ceremony.

Play Video Don't Play

Iranians elect incumbent President Rouhani for a second time, in a rejection of populism.

Play Video Don't Play

As Japan, New Zealand and other members agreed to further talks on pressing ahead themselves.

Play Video Don't Play

The Canadian Prime Minister was jogging in Vancouver when he happened upon a group of high school students posing for prom photos.

Play Video Don't Play

US President Donald Trump calls on Arab leaders to do their fair share to 'drive out' terrorism from their countries.

US President Donald Trump and White House officials take part in a ceremonial sword dance in Saudi Arabia.

He did not bow to the king. Not right away, at least.

Obama'sbent-waist handshakewithKing Abdullah caused one of the great furors of his first year as president.

Republicansran a political adabout the bow in 2009; the White Housepress secretary unconvincinglydenied it happened;and Trump was one of many whocited it years later as a symbol of Obama's weakness "he begs and pleads and bows."

Understandable, then, that Trump's firm, verticalhandshake when he greetedthe Saudi king's successor was seen by many as"a lesson in American exceptionalism."

But then, later that day: was that a ?

A bow? Surely not, someinsisted, after watching Trump bend his knees, slump forward and bob his headto let King Salman place the honorary collar of Saudi Arabia's founderaround his neck.

He's just"bending over," one supportedsuggested.

"He's receiving an award."

"More of a squat than a bow."

The White House did not immediately respond when asked if Trump had softenedhis position on bowing, aftercriticising Obama about it on more than one occasion.

Whatever he was doing with the king, Trumpappears to have left his Washington troublesonly to walk into the same quagmire of diplomaticbody language as so many presidents past.

It's not clear why, exactly, Obama's gesture to the king"It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller," an anonymous aideinsisted toPolitico in 2009.caused him so much trouble.

President George H.W. Bush haddone the same thingto a Japanese emperor, as the New York Times noted. And the second President Bush diplomaticallykissedandheld handswith Saudi royalty.

But Obama's alleged bow, less thanthreemonths into his presidency, constituted a"shocking display of fealty to a foreign potentate" to some asthe Washington Times put it.

When it was followed by a deep bowtothe Japanese emperor, Obamaenduredyears of mockery in which hisevery head tilt risked being calledprostration,with sneering headlines cataloguedby the Atlantic: Obama bows to the mayor of Tampa; Obama bows to a robot.

"American presidents do not bow before foreign dignitaries, whether they are princes, kings, or emperors,"the Weekly Standard chided.

Trump sure wouldn't, at least, as he made clear on Twitter several times before his presidential campaign.

And during it.

Many observers could not resist a superficial comparison to the past when hebegan his foreign tour.

"Trump shakes hands with Saudi leader, doesn't bow as Obama appeared to do," asFox News put it.

"How Trump just greeted Saudi Arabia's king is remarkably different than how Obama did in 2009,"the Blaze remarked, noting that Trump shookthe king's hand (though Obama has donethat too) and his wife did not wear a hijab (neither didMichelle Obama.)

But on the homepage of the Arab dailyAsharq al-Awsat, and the snarky feeds of many Trump critics, focused onadifferent picture.

And while some insisted Trump's little dip could not compare to his predecessor's manifold acts of humility, one of the president'stop political backersmade no excuses:

In fact, Trump bowedno more or less than other presidents who have worn the collar of Abdulaziz al-Saud, which the kingdombestows as an honour on foreign dignitaries.

Trump did it. Obama did it. Bush did it.

And at the risk of recalling that other greatcontroversy Russian President Vladmir Putin did it too.

There was no sign any of this was clouding Trump's trip. On the same morning of his upright handshake and maybe-bow, he took part in another long tradition of American officialson trips abroad:

Stilteddancing.

Washington Post

The rest is here:
Donald Trump mocked Barack Obama for bowing to a Saudi king ...

The Trump administration has stymied a request from the Office of Government Ethics, moving to block its petition to reveal which federal employees are former lobbyists who were granted waivers to join the White House, The New York Times reported Monday. The request was made by Walter Shaub, the director of the Office of Government Ethics.

Shaub made his request on April 28, the Times reports, asking for a list of names of administration employees who'd received such a waiver, enabling them to accept a political appointment despite having worked as a lobbyist or private lawyer within the last two years. The rule against such appointments stems from an executive order President Trump signed in January to limit lobbyists joining government similar to one signed by former President Barack Obama in 2009 but the Trump administration has "hired them at a much higher rate than the previous administration," the Times notes.

On May 17, Shaub received a letter in response from White House budget director Mick Mulvaney, asking him to "stay the data call" and withdraw his request. Mulvaney questioned Shaub's legal standing to demand the information in the first place, writing, "This data call appears to raise legal questions regarding the scope of OGE's authorities." In a statement issued by the Office of Management and Budget on Sunday, the administration questioned Shaub's motives, saying the nature of his request "implies that the data being sought is not being collected to satisfy our mutual high standard of ethics."

While Trump, like Obama, reserves the right to issue the waivers, the Obama administration automatically made each waiver public and offered an explanation of why it was issued. "It is an extraordinary thing," Shaub told the Times of the White House's refusal to honor his request. "I have never seen anything like it." Read more at The New York Times. Kimberly Alters

Continue reading here:
Trump attacked Michelle Obama for visiting Saudi Arabia ...