{"id":24958,"date":"2007-03-15T01:01:01","date_gmt":"2011-05-19T05:50:12","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2011-05-19T05:50:12","modified_gmt":"2011-05-19T05:50:12","slug":"white_house_doesn_t_seem_to_care_about_effort_to_turn_alberto_gonzales_non_story_into_watergate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/03\/15\/white_house_doesn_t_seem_to_care_about_effort_to_turn_alberto_gonzales_non_story_into_watergate\/","title":{"rendered":"White House Doesn\u2019t Seem to Care About Effort to Turn Alberto Gonzales Non-Story into Watergate"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

RUSH: There\u2019s no sense of unrest for me. Clearly times are troubling and so forth, but I maintain my cheerful optimism about things. Nothing\u2019s happened to cause me to change that. I know the Gonzales thing is still percolating out there, and it\u2019s becoming absurd. It\u2019s just absurd. The White House doesn\u2019t seem interested in doing anything about it, in a PR sense, other than trying to stop the resignation of Gonzales. But now you have John Sununu, a Republican (he\u2019s a back bencher from New Hampshire) who has called for Gonzales to step down. Big mistake. Why do we keep giving them scalps? Now, I don\u2019t know what influence Sununu is going to have. I doubt he\u2019s going to have any influence with the people. Of course, the media going to eat it up. You never know what\u2019s going to happen with other Republican senators. It only takes one for the rest of the lemmings to go off the cliff, as you know.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: All right, on to the continuing non-story of the firing of eight US attorneys. &ldquo;The Senate Judiciary Committee today cleared the way for subpoenas compelling five Justice Department officials and six of the U.S. attorneys they fired to tell the story of the purge that has prompted demands for the ouster of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.&rdquo; You know, it\u2019s interesting. You do a Google search and search for the terms ‘Watergate\u2019 and ‘Gonzales.\u2019<\/a> I found at the time 303 hits and they all mention Watergate. Watergate, Watergate, Watergate. This is not Watergate. Did I not tell you people that what the Democrats are trying to create here is another Watergate — the war in Iraq, Bush lied, all of these things — now this Gonzales story and the so-called purge of eight US attorneys. This is Nixonesque. <\/p>\n

They are attempting to redo Watergate and the Vietnam War all in the same bubble. It is their standard practice. If you search just on Google for ‘Watergate\u2019 and ‘Alberto Gonzales,\u2019 you\u2019ll find 141,000 hits and a whole bunch of them mention Watergate. From Salon.com to CBS News to a bunch of blogs, to the Washington Post, you\u2019ll find references to Watergate with this US attorney business. Now, Andy McCarthy, my friend at National Review Online and one of the prosecutors of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, one of the associate US attorneys that prosecuted that case, sent me a little note last night about all this. He said, &ldquo;The maddening thing with these controversies is it\u2019s never about the guy so much, it is about the fight. Gonzales was probably never on anybody\u2019s big list of AG candidates except the president\u2019s, but it was worth fighting for his confirmation because Democrats had turned it into a referendum on the conduct of the war. Now, no matter what you think of Gonzales\u2019 performance, it would be a travesty to allow him to be forced out because the opposition has turned the US attorney fiasco into a referendum on abuse of presidential power.&rdquo; <\/p>\n

Well, how absurd can this be? There cannot be abuse of presidential power when the president is exercising his constitutional authority! Still the Drive-By Media is stretching and bending over forwards and backwards to make all kinds of distinctions between Bill Clinton firing 93 US attorneys and Bush getting rid of eight. They\u2019re doing it by saying, &ldquo;Well, Bush was trying to stop some corruption investigations against his friends.&rdquo; Oh, as though Clinton didn\u2019t get rid of Jay Stephens in Chicago to stop an investigation into Dan ‘Rosty\u2019 Rostenkowski, and he didn\u2019t get rid of the US attorney in Little Rock and replace him with Paula Casey to stop an investigation into Whitewater? (Which worked.)<\/p>\n

By the way, it was the US attorney in Little Rock that was Clinton\u2019s real target. He tried to cover it up by having Reno announce he got rid of all 93, Jay Stephens in Chicago being one of them. But this is a powerful paragraph: &ldquo;It is remarkable that this is what it comes down to after the disgraceful Sandy Burglar sweetheart plea, the inexplicable lack of movement on the Jefferson investigation, that would be Congressman William Jefferson (Democrat-Louisiana) who is now on the homeland security committee, despite the fact that there are two people who have pled guilty to bribing Congressman William Jefferson (Democrat-Louisiana). Also, the happenstance of his being on tape taking a $100,000 bribe, 90,000 of which was seized from his refrigerator, and there is an agent who has sworn under oath that he obstructed the search of his home. <\/p>\n

&ldquo;We\u2019ve had the about-face on Jos&eacute; Padilla, now he\u2019s an enemy combatant, now he\u2019s a criminal defendant, keeps going back and forth. We\u2019ve had the sudden shift of the NSA\u2019s terrorist surveillance program to the FISA court after a year of the administration asserting that this vital program couldn\u2019t work under the FISA statute, then they put it under the FISA statute. We\u2019ve had a lack of movement on any of the wartime classified information leaks, not one. And the absence of meaningful immigration enforcement against employers and on the borders.&rdquo; Now, if you look at this — and this is just a partial list, but these are the big stories. These are the things the justice department is not doing. Where is action on Congressman Jefferson for example? Why the slap on the wrist to Sandy Burglar<\/emphasize>? You take a look at what those two guys alone are accused of doing. Two people have already admitted taking bribes from Jefferson. Well, they pled guilty to bribing him. The justice department is doing diddly-squat. I think if you\u2019re a liberal Democrat, you\u2019ve got to look at Alberto Gonzales and you\u2019ve got to love him. He\u2019s not doing anything! He went after Scooter Libby — well, not he, but he didn\u2019t stop it. <\/p>\n

You look at the Scooter Libby fiasco. You look at this fiasco. The Drive-By Media is getting away with totally mischaracterizing this as an abuse of presidential power, comparing it now to Watergate over and over and over again. Meanwhile, the justice department is sitting on its hands and not doing anything. It gives rise to the question: who\u2019s really running the show in this place? Plus, Andy\u2019s right. All of these leaks to the Washington Times and Washington Post and New York Times, where is the investigation into these? There isn\u2019t one. Nobody cares, it seems. So you have to ask who\u2019s in there bottling this stuff up? Who\u2019s making sure it doesn\u2019t happen? This is not about the US attorneys. The US attorneys are located in 93 cities and states. I\u2019m asking questions about the justice department. The same thing could be asked about State. The same thing could be asked about the Pentagon. The same thing could be asked about CIA. What\u2019s frustrating about it is the administration seems…just willing to bend over and give the Democrats part of what they want every time they start bellyaching and complaining. <\/p>\n

Now, McCarthy tells me in his note here that &ldquo;Gonzales rates being defended strictly because it would be an outrage if he lost his job over this manufactured scandal. But the president shouldn\u2019t be shocked that there isn\u2019t exactly a tidal wave rushing to the attorney general\u2019s defense, because there are a lot of people with a lot of questions of what the hell the Department of Justice has been doing or not doing and who in the DOJ is stifling these investigations.&rdquo; Why is Congressman Jefferson really <\/emphasize>on the Homeland Security Committee when two people have admitted to bribing him? Sandy Berger? What do we get? We get breathless, unrelenting pursuits of Scooter Libby over a process crime, and now we\u2019ve got this phony controversy going on. Listen to Rahm Emanuel. We\u2019ve got some audio sound bites about it. Rahm Emanuel on the floor of the House of Representatives this morning.<\/p>\n

EMANUEL: The fired US attorneys were aggressively investigating public corruption cases, and they were fired ostensibly for job performance, which in this White House means you\u2019re guilty of doing your job. The question some of us want to know, is where are these public corruption cases today? And as Washington debates whether Alberto Gonzales, the attorney general, survives by the weekend, some of us want to know whether we can bring back to life these public corruption investigations to these five jurisdictions.<\/p>\n

SPEAKER PROTEM: Time.<\/p>\n

RUSH: That\u2019s not <\/emphasize>the question, Rahm. The question is, what about the investigation of Sandy Berger and light slap on the wrist and no pursuit? What\u2019s happening to the Congressman Jefferson? There\u2019s all kinds of things out there the DoJ itself is not doing. As to these corruption cases in these five jurisdictions, Ed Whelan, also National Review Online:<\/p>\n

&ldquo;I don\u2019t claim to have been following closely the controversy over the recent dismissal of seven (or is it eight?) U.S. attorneys, but I have reviewed the internal Administration documents posted on the House Judiciary Committee\u2019s website. Based on what these documents show, the reaction to these dismissals seems curiously overwrought. This Washington Post story from today, for example, seems to strain to characterize the documents in the most one-sided manner possible. Let me explain my understanding. <\/p>\n

&ldquo;1. U.S. attorneys are executive-branch officials who serve at the pleasure of the President. On the one hand, the President has plenary power to dismiss them for any reason &mdash; including failure to adhere to Administration priorities on law enforcement &mdash; or for no reason at all. On the other, it is widely accepted (and, I certainly believe, sound) that decisions regarding prosecutions should not be politicized. For that reason, it is generally highly imprudent for the White House to intervene in, or to offer advice or direction with regard to, a specific pending matter involving, say, prosecution of elected officials or candidates for elective office. It would follow as well that, absent malfeasance, U.S. attorneys shouldn\u2019t be fired because of dissatisfaction with their handling of an ongoing matter of that nature.<\/p>\n

&ldquo;2. The Post story asserts that decisions to dismiss the eight U.S. attorneys ‘were heavily influenced by assessments of the prosecutors\u2019 political loyalty.\u2019 This assertion evidently rests on a March 2, 2005, e-mail from Kyle Sampson (Attorney General Gonzales\u2019s Chief of Staff) to White House counsel Harriet Miers that groups U.S. attorneys in three categories: those whom DOJ recommends be retained, those it recommends be removed, and those as to whom it makes no recommendation. Those in the &lsquo;to be retained\u2019 category are said to be ‘strong U.S. Attorneys who have produced, managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the President and Attorney General.\u2019 By contrast, those in the &lsquo;to be removed\u2019 category are &lsquo;weak U.S. Attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.\u2019 In context, it seems clear that Sampson and DOJ are not assessing &lsquo;political loyalty\u2019 broadly understood but rather fidelity to &lsquo;Administration initiatives.\u2019 That is an entirely proper standard for assessing the performance of U.S. attorneys.<\/p>\n

&ldquo;3. As to several of the seven or eight removed U.S. attorneys, the documents that have been made available provide specific affirmative evidence that the decisions to remove were not made on improper grounds. For example: A September 20, 2006, e-mail from a DOJ attorney, Brent Ward, to Sampson is titled &lsquo;Obscenity cases\u2019 and complains: &lsquo;We have two U.S. Attorneys who are unwilling to take good cases we have presented to them. They are Paul Charlton in Phoenix (this is urgent) and Dan Bogden in Las Vegas.\u2019 The e-mail further indicates that the Attorney General had told folks to &lsquo;kick butt and take names.\u2019 A May 31, 2006, e-mail from Sampson to Bill Mercer in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (&ldquo;ODAG&rdquo;) asks: &lsquo;Has ODAG ever called Carol Lam and woodshedded her re immigration enforcement? Has anyone?\u2019 (Lam was U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California.)&rdquo; Nobody was doing anything on illegal immigration, the justice department, they were upset about it. <\/p>\n

&ldquo;4. That the White House wanted Tim Griffin to become U.S. attorney in Arkansas does not suggest any nefarious reason for the removal of U.S. attorney Bud Cummins. No one (especially no one on the Hill) should be surprised, much less scandalized, that political favorites get political appointments. &hellip; 5. The very fact that the decision making process on the dismissals took so long&mdash;nearly two years&mdash;is powerful evidence that the dismissals were not a general effort to push folks out in a hurry in order to affect the handling of pending cases.&rdquo;<\/p>\n

Ed Whelan is exactly right. This was a two-year process to identify these eight US attorneys who were not performing up to administration standards. People get fired all the time. <\/emphasize>It is not a scandal for this to have happened. This story, the analysis by Ed Whalen is so logical. Of course it will be ignored totally by the Drive-By Media. <\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: Now some more of the fanaticism from the left — and make no mistake. Howard Dean\u2019s even got a fund-raising letter out to members of the Democratic National Committee, donors to the Democrat Party, that this is George W. Bush\u2019s Watergate. Make no mistake, that\u2019s the attempt now to link this to Watergate. It\u2019s just as I\u2019ve said all along: they\u2019ll try to take this president out if they can before \u201908 comes around. Short of that, they want to isolate Bush so that he will have no support whatsoever from members of his own party on virtually anything. They\u2019ll fail on Iraq, but it looks like they\u2019ll succeed on some of the other things. Here\u2019s Dingy Harry at a Washington press conference, talking about Gonzales.<\/p>\n

REID: It\u2019s unethical. It\u2019s immoral. I believe it\u2019s illegal, and Gonzales should be fired, or he should resign.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Mrs. Bill Clinton has joined that fray, by the way, saying that Gonzales should be fired. Here\u2019s Pat Leahy on the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer last night. Wolf\u2019s question: Is there anything illegal in putting one of Karl Rove\u2019s associates in and making him the US attorney in Arkansas?<\/p>\n

LEAHY: There\u2019s nothing illegal in a president firing — by itself, in firing — a US attorney. What I am saying is that that hurts law enforcement, that it hurts fighting against crime.<\/p>\n

RUSH: How the hell <\/emphasize>does it do that? And since when do you care about crime? You\u2019re a liberal Democrat. No, I don\u2019t say that casually or with any sense of an exaggeration. When did these people start caring about crime? What does this have to do with crime? What about the crimes that are being committed that the DoJ is sweeping under the rug? I still can\u2019t get over this Sandy Burglar <\/emphasize>stuff, folks. Stealing documents from the National Archives, originals? Who knows what he put back in there! We have a pretty good idea. He literally got a $10,000 fine, a slap on the wrist, and loses his security clearance for a short time. He will get it back in 2009, just in time to rejoin a Mrs. Bill Clinton administration — and you look at the things they are going after! Here\u2019s Leahy again this morning at the Senate judiciary committee hearing.<\/p>\n

LEAHY: If I do not get the cooperation, I will subpoena. We will have testimony under oath before this committee. We\u2019ll have the chance, both Republicans and Democrats, to ask questions — and we\u2019ll find out what happened.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Unbelievable. Unbelievable. There\u2019s no scandal; there is no crime; there have been no damage to law enforcement except maybe… Here\u2019s the frustrating thing. The Democrats are being who they are. This is no shock. I\u2019m wasting my breath and I\u2019m wasting my energy getting upset about them. I finally zeroed in on this, got deep down inside the gut to get to the root feelings on this, and the thing that has continually surprised me — stunned me, amazed me — is the appearance that this administration does not understand that they are under an attack designed to destroy <\/emphasize>them. I know that sounds incredulous. It sounds difficult to believe, and that\u2019s why it took me so long to get deep down in the gut to realize this, because it seems so obvious that any political neophyte would understand it, but it seems to me they don\u2019t! This is not politics as usual. Well, it is for the Democrats, but that\u2019s another indication of what is faced here. The Bush people don\u2019t seem to understand that they are targeted for destruction. They\u2019re out there using diplomacy in return, and I just don\u2019t understand it. I just literally do not understand.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

RUSH: There\u2019s no sense of unrest for me. Clearly times are troubling and so forth, but I maintain my cheerful optimism about things. Nothing\u2019s happened to cause me to change that. I know the Gonzales thing is still percolating out there, and it\u2019s becoming absurd. It\u2019s just absurd. The White House doesn\u2019t seem interested in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":25,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24958","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\nWhite House Doesn't Seem to Care About Effort to Turn Alberto Gonzales Non-Story into Watergate - The Rush Limbaugh Show<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/03\/15\/white_house_doesn_t_seem_to_care_about_effort_to_turn_alberto_gonzales_non_story_into_watergate\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"White House Doesn't Seem to Care About Effort to Turn Alberto Gonzales Non-Story into Watergate - The Rush Limbaugh Show\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"RUSH: There\u2019s no sense of unrest for me. Clearly times are troubling and so forth, but I maintain my cheerful optimism about things. Nothing\u2019s happened to cause me to change that. I know the Gonzales thing is still percolating out there, and it\u2019s becoming absurd. It\u2019s just absurd. The White House doesn\u2019t seem interested in […]\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/03\/15\/white_house_doesn_t_seem_to_care_about_effort_to_turn_alberto_gonzales_non_story_into_watergate\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/03\/15\/white_house_doesn_t_seem_to_care_about_effort_to_turn_alberto_gonzales_non_story_into_watergate\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b\"},\"headline\":\"White House Doesn\u2019t Seem to Care About Effort to Turn Alberto Gonzales Non-Story into Watergate\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-19T05:50:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/03\/15\/white_house_doesn_t_seem_to_care_about_effort_to_turn_alberto_gonzales_non_story_into_watergate\/\"},\"wordCount\":2942,\"commentCount\":0,\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/03\/15\/white_house_doesn_t_seem_to_care_about_effort_to_turn_alberto_gonzales_non_story_into_watergate\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/03\/15\/white_house_doesn_t_seem_to_care_about_effort_to_turn_alberto_gonzales_non_story_into_watergate\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/03\/15\/white_house_doesn_t_seem_to_care_about_effort_to_turn_alberto_gonzales_non_story_into_watergate\/\",\"name\":\"White House Doesn't Seem to Care About Effort to Turn Alberto Gonzales Non-Story into Watergate - The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-19T05:50:12+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/03\/15\/white_house_doesn_t_seem_to_care_about_effort_to_turn_alberto_gonzales_non_story_into_watergate\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/03\/15\/white_house_doesn_t_seem_to_care_about_effort_to_turn_alberto_gonzales_non_story_into_watergate\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/03\/15\/white_house_doesn_t_seem_to_care_about_effort_to_turn_alberto_gonzales_non_story_into_watergate\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"White House Doesn\u2019t Seem to Care About Effort to Turn Alberto Gonzales Non-Story into Watergate\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/\",\"name\":\"The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"description\":\"Excellence In Broadcasting\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ffb56b28807580b1dc8f699308d74821a07bb92c4598a9344e8f9450d00445b3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ffb56b28807580b1dc8f699308d74821a07bb92c4598a9344e8f9450d00445b3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/admin\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"White House Doesn't Seem to Care About Effort to Turn Alberto Gonzales Non-Story into Watergate - The Rush Limbaugh Show","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/03\/15\/white_house_doesn_t_seem_to_care_about_effort_to_turn_alberto_gonzales_non_story_into_watergate\/","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"White House Doesn't Seem to Care About Effort to Turn Alberto Gonzales Non-Story into Watergate - The Rush Limbaugh Show","twitter_description":"RUSH: There\u2019s no sense of unrest for me. Clearly times are troubling and so forth, but I maintain my cheerful optimism about things. Nothing\u2019s happened to cause me to change that. I know the Gonzales thing is still percolating out there, and it\u2019s becoming absurd. It\u2019s just absurd. The White House doesn\u2019t seem interested in […]","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/03\/15\/white_house_doesn_t_seem_to_care_about_effort_to_turn_alberto_gonzales_non_story_into_watergate\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/03\/15\/white_house_doesn_t_seem_to_care_about_effort_to_turn_alberto_gonzales_non_story_into_watergate\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b"},"headline":"White House Doesn\u2019t Seem to Care About Effort to Turn Alberto Gonzales Non-Story into Watergate","datePublished":"2011-05-19T05:50:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/03\/15\/white_house_doesn_t_seem_to_care_about_effort_to_turn_alberto_gonzales_non_story_into_watergate\/"},"wordCount":2942,"commentCount":0,"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/03\/15\/white_house_doesn_t_seem_to_care_about_effort_to_turn_alberto_gonzales_non_story_into_watergate\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/03\/15\/white_house_doesn_t_seem_to_care_about_effort_to_turn_alberto_gonzales_non_story_into_watergate\/","url":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/03\/15\/white_house_doesn_t_seem_to_care_about_effort_to_turn_alberto_gonzales_non_story_into_watergate\/","name":"White House Doesn't Seem to Care About Effort to Turn Alberto Gonzales Non-Story into Watergate - The Rush Limbaugh Show","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-19T05:50:12+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/03\/15\/white_house_doesn_t_seem_to_care_about_effort_to_turn_alberto_gonzales_non_story_into_watergate\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/03\/15\/white_house_doesn_t_seem_to_care_about_effort_to_turn_alberto_gonzales_non_story_into_watergate\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2007\/03\/15\/white_house_doesn_t_seem_to_care_about_effort_to_turn_alberto_gonzales_non_story_into_watergate\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"White House Doesn\u2019t Seem to Care About Effort to Turn Alberto Gonzales Non-Story into Watergate"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/","name":"The Rush Limbaugh Show","description":"Excellence In Broadcasting","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ffb56b28807580b1dc8f699308d74821a07bb92c4598a9344e8f9450d00445b3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/ffb56b28807580b1dc8f699308d74821a07bb92c4598a9344e8f9450d00445b3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"url":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24958","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/users\/25"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24958"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24958\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24958"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24958"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24958"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}