{"id":2009020,"date":"2023-08-23T07:34:02","date_gmt":"2023-08-23T11:34:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/after-hunters-sweetheart-deal-went-south-heres-whats-next-from-bidens-compromised-doj\/"},"modified":"2023-08-23T07:42:34","modified_gmt":"2023-08-23T11:42:34","slug":"after-hunters-sweetheart-deal-went-south-heres-whats-next-from-bidens-compromised-doj","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/after-hunters-sweetheart-deal-went-south-heres-whats-next-from-bidens-compromised-doj\/","title":{"rendered":"What&#8217;s Next for Biden&#8217;s DOJ After Hunter&#8217;s Deal Turns Sour"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">20<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fafter-hunters-sweetheart-deal-went-south-heres-whats-next-from-bidens-compromised-doj%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2009020&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><div class=\"article-content\">\n<h2>The \u200dCollapse of Hunter \u200bBiden\u2019s\u200d Sweetheart Plea Deal<\/h2>\n<p>The \u2064collapse of\u200c Hunter Biden\u2019s sweetheart plea deal \u200dleft many questions unanswered. Here\u2019s what you \u200dneed to know to understand what happened, what may\u2063 come next, and what to\u2062 watch\u2062 for.<\/p>\n<h3>The Sweetheart\u2064 Plea Deal<\/h3>\n<p>In late July 2023, Hunter Biden appeared before federal Judge Maryellen Noreika planning to plead guilty to two misdemeanor \u2064tax counts and to\u200b resolve a gun charge with\u200c a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/justice-department-charges-hunter-biden\/\" title=\"Justice Department charges Hunter Biden\">pretrial diversion agreement<\/a>. Things did not go according to plan, \u200chowever, with Noreika \u2014\u2062 instead of rubber stamping the plea\u2063 agreement \u2014 \u2064questioning both the\u2064 government and Biden\u2019s attorney on\u2062 the specifics of the deal.<\/p>\n<p>As the in-court colloquy \u2062with\u2062 Noreika revealed, the language proved confusing \u2014 more\u200c on that shortly \u2014 leaving Hunter Biden to plead not guilty and the \u2062hearing to continue later.<\/p>\n<p>In formulating the deal\u200b for Hunter Biden, Delaware U.S. Attorney \u2064David Weiss separated the charges into two separate criminal dockets and two\u200d separate \u201cinformations.\u201d An information is a charging document, \u2064like an indictment, but while an indictment is\u2063 issued by a \u2063grand jury, a prosecutor states the\u2063 charges in an information. Generally,\u200b federal\u200d prosecutors \u2064use an information in cases charging misdemeanors or \u200bin felony cases where the\u2062 defendant has waived his \u200bconstitutional right to a grand jury \u2063indictment, \u2062typically as part of a plea agreement.<\/p>\n<h3>Gun Charge: Docket 23-CR-00061<\/h3>\n<p>The \u200dfirst information issued by \u2063the Delaware \u200dU.S. attorney\u2019s office charged Hunter Biden with knowingly possessing a firearm while\u2062 knowing he \u201cwas an unlawful user of\u200c and \u200caddicted to a \u200dcontrolled substance,\u201d in\u2064 violation of 18\u200d U.S.C \u00a7 922(g)(3). Of note: That information did not also charge Hunter with lying on the federal firearm\u2063 form he signed when \u2064purchasing\u2062 the gun,\u2062 something Hunter Biden\u200c admitted he did when he answered \u201cno\u201d to\u2064 the \u200bquestion\u2062 of whether he \u200cwas \u201can unlawful user of, or addicted to,\u201d any \u201ccontrolled substance.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>To resolve the single \u200cgun charge \u2063included\u200b in \u200cthe first information, \u2062the Delaware U.S. attorney\u2019s office and Hunter Biden struck a deal to \u200buse a pretrial division agreement \u2063to, in essence, put the charge on hold for 24 months. If Hunter Biden stayed clean and out of \u200dtrouble\u2063 and\u200b satisfied the other requirements set forth in \u200cthat agreement during that time period, the government\u200b would then dismiss the gun \u200bcharge; if not,\u200c the \u2063government could prosecute Hunter \u201cfor any federal \u2063criminal violation.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The pretrial diversion agreement included Hunter\u2019s waiver \u2062of a\u2064 right to \u200cindictment by a grand jury and also included in paragraph 15 an \u201cagreement not to prosecute,\u201d which has been \u200breferred to colloquially \u2063as \u201cimmunity.\u201d<\/p>\n<h3>Tax\u200d Charges:\u200c Docket \u206323-MJ-00274<\/h3>\n<p>That second information charged the president\u2019s son with two\u200c misdemeanors: willfully\u200c failing to pay his 2017 \u2063and 2018\u2062 taxes\u2063 in violation\u2064 of 26 \u2064U.S.C. \u00a7 \u200d7203.<\/p>\n<p>The plea \u2062agreement sought to resolve the two \u2063misdemeanor tax \u2062charges contained in\u200c the second information. \u200dThe deal struck required Hunter Biden to plead\u200b guilty to those two\u2062 counts, and the Delaware U.S. attorney\u2019s\u200b office would recommend a sentence\u200d of probation. The deal also required \u2063Hunter to\u200c waive \u200bany\u200c objection to \u201cvenue,\u201d meaning the location of the proceedings, and to waive\u2064 indictment \u2063by a grand jury.<\/p>\n<p>The plea agreement for the two misdemeanor tax charges did not include a promise\u200b by the government not to\u2062 prosecute Hunter Biden, but as noted above, the\u2063 pretrial diversion agreement\u2019s commitment not\u2064 to\u200b charge Hunter Biden \u200cexpressly referenced Attachment 1 to the plea agreement, with Weiss promising not to charge\u2063 Hunter for crimes \u201cencompassed\u201d in that Statement of Facts.<\/p>\n<h3>Noreika \u2062Calls Foul<\/h3>\n<p>This\u200d backdrop makes more understandable \u2063the questions Noreika posed to the parties during Hunter Biden\u2019s \u200dJuly\u200c 26,\u200b 2023, hearing. The federal \u200djudge began by noting the two \u2062agreements were \u201cnot\u2062 standard,\u201d and then explained that\u200d she needed to ask Hunter Biden \u2063some questions \u200bto ensure his plea \u200bwas \u201cvoluntary \u2062and knowing.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Noreika \u2063proceeded first to assess \u2063Hunter Biden\u2019s competence and \u2063then \u2064asked\u2063 the parties the type \u200dof plea being \u2064presented \u200band her\u2062 role. Both the government \u2062and the defendant\u2019s attorney maintained that\u2064 the plea agreement was under Federal Rules of Criminal\u200c Procedure Rule 11(c)(1)(B), as opposed to the\u200d other\u200d subsections governing plea agreements. The lawyers further maintained that under Rule 11(c)(1)(B), the court\u2019s sole \u2063role was to ensure Hunter\u2019s competency and that his plea \u200bwas knowing and \u200cvoluntary. The court could not reject \u200dthe plea agreement under \u200bRule 11(c)(1)(B), as it\u200b could under\u2063 Rule\u200b 11(c)(1)(A), \u2062the attorneys explained.<\/p>\n<p>Upon\u2064 further questioning from Noreika, the prosecution acknowledged\u2062 that had the \u200bplea agreement \u200cbeen\u200c covered\u200b by Rule 11(c)(1)(A), the\u2062 court could have \u2063rejected the plea agreement because\u2062 it was not in the public interest \u2014 for \u2063instance,\u200d because \u2063it failed to adequately represent \u2063the seriousness\u2064 of the offense.\u200d But \u2063because the\u200d government \u2062and\u2064 Hunter\u2019s attorney had\u2064 structured \u2062the deal \u2062as a Rule\u200b 11(c)(1)(B) plea agreement, the court lacked the discretion to reject it.<\/p>\n<p>Following those clarifications, Assistant U.S. \u200dAttorney Leo Wise walked through the terms \u200bof the plea agreement\u200c for the tax case and the attached Statement of Facts, which detailed Hunter\u2019s \u201cbusiness\u201d \u200ddealings.<\/p>\n<p>The court then \u2064returned to \u200cHunter Biden. \u201cHas \u200banyone \u2062made \u200cyou\u2063 any promises that are\u200d not\u2064 contained\u2062 in\u200b the\u2064 written agreement?\u201d the court asked him.<\/p>\n<p>His attorney, Chris \u2062Clark interjected, \u201cWith the exception \u200bof the \u200dDiversion Agreement.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Judge Noreika made clear she was \u201cnot making any exception,\u201d and \u200bwanted \u201cto know, has anyone made you any promises that are not contained in the written\u2062 Memorandum of Plea Agreement?\u201d Clark again\u2062 spoke for his client, saying, \u201cYes, there are promises from the government in the Diversion Agreement, Your Honor.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The court questioned Hunter\u2064 directly then, asking if he was \u201crelying on the \u2064promises made in\u2063 the Diversion Agreement in connection with [his] agreement to plead\u2064 guilty?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cYes,\u201d Hunter \u2064replied, followed\u200d by a \u201cno\u201d when \u200dasked if he would enter into the Memorandum of Plea Agreement on\u2063 the tax counts \u201cif the Diversion Agreement were not valid or unenforceable for any \u2062reason\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Noreika then turned to the diversion agreement, quoted paragraph 15\u2019s promise not to prosecute, and asked Hunter if he was \u201crelying on that promise in connection\u200b with [his] agreement\u200b to \u2062accept\u2062 the Memorandum of Plea Agreement\u2063 and plead\u200b guilty?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cYes, Your Honor,\u201d Hunter confirmed and then \u200bagain said \u201cno,\u201d he would not accept the Memorandum of Plea\u2063 Agreement if paragraph 15\u2062 \u201cwere not valid or not enforceable\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n<p>However, after a brief recess for the \u2064parties to confer, Hunter Biden returned and told the \u200dcourt the contrary: that he would \u200cplead guilty\u200d to the two misdemeanor tax charges even if\u2063 the pretrial diversion agreement were \u200cnot valid.<\/p>\n<p>Changing course, Noreika pushed the parties on\u2063 paragraph 15\u2019s non-prosecution promise. After noting\u200d that the promise \u200cnot to prosecute reached far beyond the\u200c gun charges\u200b for which the diversion agreement was \u200bentered, the court \u200basked whether there was \u201cany \u2062precedent for agreeing not to\u2064 prosecute crimes that \u200chave nothing\u200c to do with \u200dthe case or \u2062the charges being\u2062 diverted.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Wise\u2064 acknowledged \u2062there was \u2062none.\u2063 Wise further told the court he did not believe the probation \u200doffice had a role in weighing whether the\u2062 agreement\u2062 was valid and \u200bthat instead\u200d it was a \u201cbilateral\u200b agreement\u201d between the parties.<\/p>\n<h3>Big-Time Disagreement<\/h3>\n<p>The \u200bcourt then \u2064quizzed the parties on their understanding of \u200cthe promise not to\u200c prosecute to determine if there \u200dwere a \u201cmeeting of \u2062the minds\u201d \u2014 something\u2063 required for a contract to exist. The government maintained that it could\u2062 still charge Hunter\u200c Biden with\u200d violating\u200c the Foreign \u200dAgents \u2062Registration Act, while Hunter\u2019s\u200c attorney disagreed. At \u200dthat point, both \u200cthe government \u2062and Hunter\u2019s attorney indicated there was no deal.<\/p>\n<h3>Wink,\u200b Wink, Nod, Nod<\/h3>\n<p>After a second brief recess, however, the \u2063parties changed course again\u2064 and told the court they had agreed that the promise not to prosecute contained in the diversion agreement was limited to\u2063 three\u200c categories of crimes. Specifically, Hunter\u2019s attorney expressly confirmed for the court \u201cthat\u200d the \u2062agreement not\u200c to \u200dprosecute only includes the time period from 2014 \u2063to 2019, it only\u200d includes tax charges in that time period, \u200ddrug charges\u200d in that time period, and the particular \u2014 the firearms charges that\u200b relate\u2062 to\u2062 this\u2064 particular firearm.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Later, \u2062in reviewing the other terms of the diversion agreement, the Delaware\u200d U.S. attorney\u2019s office noted paragraph 15 had been\u2064 orally modified by defense \u2063counsel during the hearing, and the government\u2019s position was that \u2063the modification was binding.\u2064 When asked by the court\u2063 if \u200bhe had any corrections to make\u2062 to the prosecution\u2019s summary of \u200bthe diversion agreement \u200cterms, Hunter\u2019s lawyer responded \u201cno.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Noreika next pushed \u200dthe parties \u2063on another provision \u2064of \u200cthe diversion agreement \u2014 one which, as \u200bshe put it, placed her \u201csmack in the \u2064middle\u201d of \u200dit. The provision of concern gave the judge \u200cthe responsibility of determining if Hunter Biden had breached the\u2063 diversion\u200b agreement, making him subject to\u200b prosecution. Noreika noted that term raised constitutional concerns, and she questioned\u2062 whether it \u2064rendered the entire diversion agreement invalid.<\/p>\n<h3>Court Calls a Timeout<\/h3>\n<p>After \u200dexpressing her concerns with \u2062that provision, Hunter \u200cBiden\u2019s conflicting statements about\u200c whether he \u200dwished to plead\u200b guilty without\u200b the\u2064 diversion agreement\u2019s promise not\u2063 to\u200b prosecute, and the government\u2019s\u200d failure to include the non-prosecution agreement in the plea deal, as is typical, Noreika concluded\u2062 she needed\u200c further briefing before accepting\u200b a guilty \u200bplea. The \u2062court also \u200csuggested the \u200cparties confer to determine if they could\u200d remove that \u200dprovision,\u200d thereby eliminating her concern. And while they were at it, Noreika added, the parties \u200bmight want to \u201cfix that one paragraph that\u2064 you\u2063 have orally modified today,\u201d a\u2064 reference to paragraph 15\u2019s non-prosecution agreement.<\/p>\n<h3>On Second Thought<\/h3>\n<p>Some two weeks later, news broke \u2064that the plea deal had crumbled when \u200dAttorney General \u200cMerrick Garland announced he was appointing David \u200dWeiss as special counsel and Weiss\u2019s legal team\u200c filed a motion \u200basking the court to vacate (or cancel) its order\u200d directing the parties to brief various outstanding issues. Those issues were no longer germane, the Delaware \u2063U.S. attorney\u2019s office explained because the parties had \u2063been unable to reach an agreement.<\/p>\n<p>The same day, prosecutors filed a\u200c motion to dismiss the tax charges against Hunter \u200bBiden. They explained that because the \u2063plea agreement\u2064 had collapsed, they would need to\u2062 charge the\u2062 president\u2019s son in a different venue,\u200c either the middle\u2062 district of California or\u2064 the \u200cfederal district\u200d for Washington, D.C.<\/p>\n<p>Hunter Biden\u2019s legal team responded\u200d to the motions, agreeing\u2063 that briefing was no longer needed and that \u2064dismissal of\u2062 the tax charges was appropriate. Biden\u2019s lawyers made clear, however, that they believed the \u2063pretrial\u200b diversion agreement \u2014 including the agreement not to\u2062 prosecute \u2014 \u200bremained valid and enforceable. Conversely, U.S. Attorney Weiss argued the\u2064 pretrial diversion agreement was not valid because the probation office \u2064never approved it, as the parties anticipated.<\/p>\n<p>Noreika granted both motions, canceling briefing of the various issues, dismissing\u2064 the criminal information\u200b that charged Hunter Biden with two tax counts, and closing that case. The information charging Hunter \u200cBiden \u2062with a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/after-hunters-sweetheart-deal-went-south-heres-whats-next-from-bidens-compromised-doj\/\" title=\"What's Next for Biden's DOJ After Hunter's Deal Turns Sour\">felony gun\u2062 charge remains pending<\/a>, however, and that case is still open.<\/p>\n<h3>What Happens Next?<\/h3>\n<p>To prosecute Hunter Biden on \u2062the\u2064 tax counts,\u2062 U.S. Attorney \u200cWeiss will\u2064 now\u2064 need to obtain \u2063indictments\u2062 against the president\u2019s\u200d son in the\u2062 proper\u200b venue based on his residency \u2064at the \u200dtime he \u2062filed his tax \u200dreturns. In naming Weiss a special counsel, \u2063Garland authorized the U.S. attorney to initiate prosecutions in any federal jurisdiction, so that \u200dis no \u200blonger an \u2062impediment.<\/p>\n<p>What will be\u200d telling \u2063is \u200bwhether\u2062 Weiss seeks felony tax-evasion charges against\u200c Hunter Biden or hands the president\u2019s son an \u200dindictment merely repeating the misdemeanor counts.<\/p>\n<p>Weiss\u2019s legal \u200dteam\u200c will\u2062 also need to indict Hunter for any \u200dcharges related to\u200d his illegal purchase and disposition of the gun. \u2064While \u200dthat count remains pending, the charge was brought via \u200dan information based on Hunter\u2019s waiver\u200b of his right to a grand\u2062 jury.\u2062 That waiver was part of \u200cthe <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/hunter-biden-prosecutor-forced-to-make-confession-in-court-judge-orders-him-to-sit-down\/\" title=\"Hunter Biden's prosecutor compelled to confess in court, judge commands him to be seated.\">pretrial diversion\u2064 agreement<\/a>, however, which the government maintains is not \u2064effective.\u2063 Accordingly, Weiss will need\u200c to obtain \u2064an indictment and\u200d substitute it for the \u200dinformation.\u200d Because venue for any \u200dgun counts is still proper \u2062in Delaware, however, there\u200d was no need for Weiss \u2063to dismiss the case.<\/p>\n<p>Again, what charges Weiss\u200c seeks will be telling of whether he intends to zealously pursue\u200d criminal charges. As Noreika noted, the constitutionality of the count\u2063 brought against\u2063 Hunter Biden is \u2062questionable,\u2062 but a false statement \u2064charge would not face the same impediment. Under these\u200d circumstances, a normal indictment would include both \u200bcharges to ensure at least one <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/6-takeaways-from-the-supreme-court-decision-protecting-americans-right-to-self-defense\/\" title=\"6 Takeaways From The Supreme Court Decision Protecting Americans\u2019 Right To Self-Defense\">passes constitutional muster<\/a>.<\/p>\n<h3>Fight over the Pretrial Diversion Agreement<\/h3>\n<p>Once Weiss charges Hunter Biden with one or more gun charges by indictment, watch for the president\u2019s son to argue the pretrial diversion agreement precluded any \u200dsuch charge absent \u2063Hunter breaching\u2063 the terms of the agreement \u2014 something\u2062 he has not done, his attorneys \u2062will\u2063 argue.<\/p>\n<p>Whether the pretrial diversion remains valid will be a question for\u200b Noreika, and while there is no guarantee, her questioning \u2063in the late-July plea\u200c hearing\u200d suggests she will\u200b find that agreement invalid. If invalid, Hunter Biden\u200d will\u2062 have\u200c no protection from prosecution \u200cof the\u2062 gun or tax charges\u2063 that seem imminent.<\/p>\n<p>But even if a \u2062jury\u200c convicts Hunter \u200con\u2063 multiple \u2063tax\u200c and gun counts, \u200dthe president\u2019s \u2064son still may be getting off easy given the charges he \u200dcould have \u2063faced had the Delaware U.S. attorney\u2019s\u2063 office not botched the statute of limitations for the earlier\u200d tax\u200c years. Likewise, \u2064without the protection\u200c of the \u200dDepartment \u200bof Justice, \u200dHunter Biden and the \u201cBig Guy\u201d might have both faced \u200cmuch more serious charges.<\/p>\n<p>While\u2063 the sweetheart\u200c deal may \u2063have collapsed, the justice system is still far from standing\u2064 tall.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The collapse of Hunter Biden&#8217;s plea deal raises unanswered questions. To grasp the situation, learn about what occurred, potential future developments, and key aspects to monitor. In July 2023, Hunter Biden intended to admit guilt for two tax misdemeanors before Judge Maryellen Noreika.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":499,"featured_media":2009021,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2009020","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2009020","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/499"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2009020"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2009020\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2009021"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2009020"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2009020"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2009020"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}