{"id":334942,"date":"2020-01-29T16:08:21","date_gmt":"2020-01-29T21:08:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?p=334942"},"modified":"2020-01-30T22:53:38","modified_gmt":"2020-01-31T03:53:38","slug":"the-answer-to-the-first-question-should-close-the-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2020\/01\/29\/the-answer-to-the-first-question-should-close-the-case\/","title":{"rendered":"The Answer to the First Question Should Close the Case"},"content":{"rendered":"

RUSH: Somebody asked the House managers, “Well, why didn\u2019t you…? Why didn\u2019t you call witnesses? Why didn\u2019t you…? Why didn\u2019t you fight the president on executive privilege when you wanted witnesses in the House, in the hearings? Why didn\u2019t you fight it?” Hakeem Jeffries stood up there and said, “The president didn\u2019t assert executive privilege.<\/p>\n

“He simply said he can do whatever he wants. He\u2019s the president and he issued a blanket denial of everything.” I just want to make sure I heard what I heard, and I\u2019m gonna need Philbin\u2019s answer to this to make sure that I heard what I heard. … Okay. We have some of the Q&A. I had only a chance to watch this, you know, in three-minute spurts when we are here in the EIB obscene profit breaks. Hang on just a second. (interruption) Oh, okay. New beta update, I\u2019m just informed, is ready to install. I\u2019ll get to that in a minute.<\/p>\n

Anyway, I\u2019m kind of surprised, I guess — and maybe it\u2019s \u2019cause I\u2019m older. I\u2019ve been to the U.S. Senate. My parents took me to the U.S. Senate with my brother when we were 15. I\u2019ll never forget. Barry Goldwater was on the floor. They were debating the farm bill, ad this was during the days of Everett Dirksen and Barry Goldwater. I remembered there was somebody sitting in the same row we were chewing gum, and one of the pages came down and made the person stop and spit it out. Another person was reading a book and turning the pages.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The page came and took the book away. You can\u2019t make any noise, can\u2019t provide any kind of distraction whatsoever. I just remember… Now, granted, I\u2019m 15. But, even after that, even as I grew older and the Senate began to be televised and I would watch it, I just had the impression that it was serious and formal, that it wasn\u2019t sophomoric. I\u2019m watching this, and the way this question-and-answer thing is formatted, the senators write their questions on a card, and then senators submit the cards to the chief justice, and the chief justice then reads the question.<\/p>\n

I feel like I\u2019m watching something happening here in the seventh grade. So the chief justice reads the question, puts his glasses down and says, “We will hear first from the House managers.” Then the House managers decide who among them\u2019s gonna answer it, and they stumble around. They assign whoever to go up there and start answering the question and so forth. The chief justice seems to be treating these people like they\u2019re morons, like they can\u2019t follow basic instructions.<\/p>\n

“We will hear first from the House managers.” I don\u2019t know. Again, it\u2019s a quick observation made over not very much time. I haven\u2019t had a chance to really listen to this in context. But here is… We\u2019ll start with sound bite 21, 22, 23. This is Susan Collins. You know, senators don\u2019t read the questions. They send the questions to the chief justice, and this is it sounds…<\/p>\n

COLLINS: I send a question to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Romney.<\/p>\n

ROBERTS: This is a question for the council for the president: “If President Trump had more than one motive for his alleged conduct — such as the pursuit of personal political advantage, rooting out corruption, and the promotion of national interests — how should the Senate consider more than one motive in its assessment of Article 1?”<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

RUSH: Okay. So I guess that sounds okay. It just sounds… It sounds like everybody thinks that they\u2019re not too bright in there and they\u2019ve gotta go very slow, make sure they don\u2019t confuse anybody. But here\u2019s the question Susan Collins asked (impression): “I send a question to the desk on behalf of myself — and I am myself — and Senator Murkowski and Senator Romney.” Okay, and so the chief reads the question:” This is a question for the council for the president,” meaning: You guys, you lawyers over there for the president, this is for you.<\/p>\n

“If President Trump had more than one motive for his alleged conduct,” like suggesting that Burisma, the Bidens will be investigated. If the “alleged conduct [was] the pursuit of personal political advantage,” like trying to get dirt on Plugs, “rooting out corruption” in Ukraine “and the promotion of national interests,” if there\u2019s three motives here, how should we senators “consider more than one motive in its assessment of Article 1?” So here is Patrick Philbin, and the answer… Well, you tell me. Here\u2019s the answer…<\/p>\n

PHILBIN: If there were a motive there was a public interest but also some personal interest, we think it follows even more clearly that that cannot possibly be the basis for an impeachable offense. And they\u2019ve even said. They came up and they talked a lot about the Bidens. They talked a lot about these issues in 2016 election interference because they were saying there\u2019s not even a scintilla — a scintilla — of any evidence of anything worth looking into there. And that\u2019s the standard that they would have to meet, showing that there\u2019s no possible public interest, and the president couldn\u2019t have had any smidgen, even, of a public interest motive. It would be absurd to have the Senate trying to consider, “Well, was it 48% legitimate interests and 52% personal interest, or was it the other way? Was it 53% and 40?” You can\u2019t divide it that way.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

RUSH: He goes on to explain how you can\u2019t impeach presidents for considering politics…<\/p>\n

PHILBIN: Once you\u2019re into mixed-motive land, it\u2019s clear that their case fails. There can\u2019t possibly be an impeachable offense at all. You think about it. All elected officials, to some extent, have in mind how their conduct, how their decisions, their policy decisions, will affect the next election. There\u2019s always some personal interest in the electoral outcome of policy decisions — and there\u2019s nothing wrong with that. That\u2019s part of representative democracy. Once it is established that there is a legitimate public interest that could justify looking into something — just asking a question about something — the manager\u2019s case fails, and it fails under their own terms.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Now, that is perfectly clear to me, that you can\u2019t take politics out of this, and that everybody in politics calculates how whatever their political actions are, how that\u2019s gonna impact their reelection or their campaign or their polling data or their fundraising or whatever else. Their job approval numbers. You can\u2019t separate the two. The House managers would like you to believe that (impression) “there is some unique area where everything is perfect, and nobody does anything for any personal gain whatsoever — and Trump violated it.<\/p>\n

“Everything Trump does is for personal gain, and that\u2019s putting himself ahead of the office,” and so forth. These guys have nuked that. I mean, after I hear this answer, I said, “That\u2019s the case.” I mean, it should end the case. Shut it down. Go back and grab sound bite number 5 again.<\/p>\n

I think… You know, this is one of these things… I led the program off with this today. Here is Da Nang Dick, Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut<\/a>, yesterday on Capitol Hill after the president\u2019s lawyers had presented their case, after the House managers had presented theirs. So, both cases are in. That phase of this trial is over.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s how Da Nang Dick characterized it…<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>BLUMENTHAL: What you just saw was a fact-free summation of a case bereft of evidence. We need the evidence. We need the witnesses and documents.<\/p>\n

RUSH: How stupid…? I tell you, how ignorant, how unaware is this guy? He just admits that what everybody just saw was “a fact-free summation of the case bereft of evidence.” For those of you in Rio Linda, it means they didn\u2019t have any: “a fact-free summation of a case bereft of evidence.” He is admitting that the House managers have no case, they have no evidence, and they didn\u2019t present any — and he\u2019s so cockeyed that he thinks that is a legitimate reason to call witnesses, that that\u2019s a legitimate reason for the Senate to start doing its own investigation, because the House didn\u2019t have a case.<\/p>\n

This is like you being on trial for murder. The prosecution doesn\u2019t have any evidence. They can\u2019t convict you. So they ask one of the jurors, “Hey, would you mind doing further investigation for us? We don\u2019t have any evidence! My closing argument is not gonna be able to convict the guy. You gotta go out and find more evidence for me!” It wouldn\u2019t happen. But Da Nang Dick, he thinks he\u2019s being brilliant here. He thinks he\u2019s making the case for witnesses. He thinks he\u2019s making the case for documents. Yeah, because the House didn\u2019t have any witnesses, didn\u2019t have any facts, didn\u2019t have any case!<\/p>\n

Well, as far as I\u2019m concerned, that means shut it down. Shut it down. It means it is over. Professor Dershowitz is now suggesting that some of what the House managers have been doing is psychoanalyzing the president — and it\u2019s true. They\u2019ve been trying to get at his motives, what he wanted to do, not what he did, \u2019cause what he did is not impeachable. Again, all of this is the Democrats attempting to keep you from meddling in the 2020 election. They\u2019re trying to prevent you from voting in the 2020 election.<\/p>\n

Let me grab a quick call. Blaine, Washington. Edward, great to have you, sir, on the EIB Network. Hello.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Yes. Good afternoon, Rush. I\u2019m kind of beating a dead horse here, but if there is no criminal evidence, is there an option of a dismissal? That\u2019s it.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Well, here again, let me be very… This has been stated, again. There doesn\u2019t need to be any criminal evidence. Impeachment can be whatever the House says it is, and that pretty much is true. “High crimes and misdemeanors” is a pretty broad thing. Impeachment is a political act, and the House can impeach the president any time they want, for any reason they want. They have to get the votes to do it, but they can impeach him for anything. There does not need to be a statutory crime committed.<\/p>\n

There hasn\u2019t been a statutory crime committed here. There hasn\u2019t been an impeachable offense found — and yet, where are we? They can call it whatever they want; they can claim anything they want is impeachment. That\u2019s what\u2019s wrong with this, among many things wrong with it. They have watered down this entire constitutional procedure to now be meaningless. They have converted impeachment into simply another weapon in a partisan arsenal designed to get rid of a political opponent you don\u2019t like. That\u2019s what they\u2019ve turned impeachment into.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s what this has become — and once the bar has been lowered as they have lowered it, it makes it easier to do it again and again. The idea of payback being a central part of politics, this will happen again. I\u2019m not gonna predict when party will do it or when on over what, but it will happen again. The Democrats said they were gonna impeach Trump two weeks before he was inaugurated. They said they were gonna impeach him two weeks after he was inaugurated. The Mueller report, the Mueller investigation, Trump-Russia collusion — all of this is part of this culmination here.<\/p>\n

If they could have gotten rid of Trump with the Mueller report, they would have. If they coulda gotten rid of Trump at the Kavanaugh hearings, they would have. If they could have gotten rid of Trump at any time prior to this, they would have. But since every effort has failed, here we are at impeachment — and this is a total setup. Can you believe that a phone call that 20 people were on — that 20 people heard, for which a transcript has been released — is why we\u2019re here? Let that sink in for a moment. Just stop and think.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

A phone call 20 people heard! The whistleblower who reported it did not hear it, in fact. The whistleblower got a secondhand version of it from Lieutenant Colonel Vindman. The whistleblower is a CIA operative from the John Brennan camp. He\u2019s from the Obama administration, ae\u2019s a holdover, and it has been uncovered that he and others in the National Security Council have been plotting to get rid of Trump beginning two weeks after Trump was inaugurated. The whistleblower\u2019s first characterizations of the phone call:<\/p>\n

“Shocking! Terrifying! Frightening! So bad, I couldn\u2019t wait! I had to report it.” Then the transcript is released and there\u2019s nothing shocking. There\u2019s certainly nothing terrifying. There\u2019s nothing earth-shattering. The whistleblower, the guy that got all this started, is the only person that hasn\u2019t been heard from, because to hear from the whistleblower would expose Adam Schiff\u2019s role in this entire fiasco. But a phone call that 20 people heard, 20 people on the call… By the way, that\u2019s standard operating procedure.<\/p>\n

Presidents don\u2019t make phone calls with no witnesses. Official United States policy phone calls, one leader to another, there\u2019s always a bunch of people on the phone call. Trump is being impeached in part here because Lieutenant Colonel Vindman prepared talking points, and Trump didn\u2019t use any of them, and Schiff is saying, “See? This means he\u2019s out for his own personal gain. He didn\u2019t use the talking points that his professional, uh, ambassadorial staff and national security staff prepared, which means he\u2019s in it for himself!<\/p>\n

“It\u2019s impeachable that Trump did not use the talking points.” What else did Schiff say? There\u2019s some other crazy… Chris Coons. This is the Democrat senator from Delaware that corrupted Jeff Flake during the Kavanaugh hearings. Chris Coons said (summarized), “Hypothetically, Trump could be impeached for his tweets, his hateful tweets, his racist tweets. We could impeach Trump for that! Hypothetically.” He said this to Chuck Todd at NBC, who was salivating at the very idea.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

RUSH: They've been trying to get at his motives, what he wanted to do, not what he did, 'cause what he did is not impeachable. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"featured_media":334979,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[12,1],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nThe Answer to the First Question Should Close the Case - 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\/2020\/01\/29\/the-answer-to-the-first-question-should-close-the-case\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"The Answer to the First Question Should Close the Case - The Rush Limbaugh Show\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"RUSH: They've been trying to get at his motives, what he wanted to do, not what he did, 'cause what he did is not impeachable.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/APP-012920-Grab.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"George Prayias\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/\",\"name\":\"The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"description\":\"Excellence In Broadcasting\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2020\/01\/29\/the-answer-to-the-first-question-should-close-the-case\/#primaryimage\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/APP-012920-Grab.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/APP-012920-Grab.jpg\",\"width\":640,\"height\":360},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2020\/01\/29\/the-answer-to-the-first-question-should-close-the-case\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2020\/01\/29\/the-answer-to-the-first-question-should-close-the-case\/\",\"name\":\"The Answer to the First Question Should Close the Case - The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2020\/01\/29\/the-answer-to-the-first-question-should-close-the-case\/#primaryimage\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-01-29T21:08:21+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-01-31T03:53:38+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/a2bc43fbe4b4e1ff4d1f092c6086a349\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2020\/01\/29\/the-answer-to-the-first-question-should-close-the-case\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2020\/01\/29\/the-answer-to-the-first-question-should-close-the-case\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2020\/01\/29\/the-answer-to-the-first-question-should-close-the-case\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Answer to the First Question Should Close the Case\"}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/a2bc43fbe4b4e1ff4d1f092c6086a349\",\"name\":\"George Prayias\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a43c262983f0228d5f474ce08e691cf9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a43c262983f0228d5f474ce08e691cf9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"George Prayias\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/georgeeibnet-com\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Answer to the First Question Should Close the Case - 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\/2020\/01\/29\/the-answer-to-the-first-question-should-close-the-case\/","twitter_card":"summary","twitter_title":"The Answer to the First Question Should Close the Case - The Rush Limbaugh Show","twitter_description":"RUSH: They've been trying to get at his motives, what he wanted to do, not what he did, 'cause what he did is not impeachable.","twitter_image":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/APP-012920-Grab.jpg","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"George Prayias","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/","name":"The Rush Limbaugh Show","description":"Excellence In Broadcasting","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2020\/01\/29\/the-answer-to-the-first-question-should-close-the-case\/#primaryimage","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/APP-012920-Grab.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/APP-012920-Grab.jpg","width":640,"height":360},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2020\/01\/29\/the-answer-to-the-first-question-should-close-the-case\/#webpage","url":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2020\/01\/29\/the-answer-to-the-first-question-should-close-the-case\/","name":"The Answer to the First Question Should Close the Case - The Rush Limbaugh Show","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2020\/01\/29\/the-answer-to-the-first-question-should-close-the-case\/#primaryimage"},"datePublished":"2020-01-29T21:08:21+00:00","dateModified":"2020-01-31T03:53:38+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/a2bc43fbe4b4e1ff4d1f092c6086a349"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2020\/01\/29\/the-answer-to-the-first-question-should-close-the-case\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2020\/01\/29\/the-answer-to-the-first-question-should-close-the-case\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2020\/01\/29\/the-answer-to-the-first-question-should-close-the-case\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Answer to the First Question Should Close the Case"}]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/a2bc43fbe4b4e1ff4d1f092c6086a349","name":"George Prayias","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#personlogo","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a43c262983f0228d5f474ce08e691cf9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a43c262983f0228d5f474ce08e691cf9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"George Prayias"},"url":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/georgeeibnet-com\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/334942"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/users\/49"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=334942"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/334942\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":335068,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/334942\/revisions\/335068"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/media\/334979"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=334942"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=334942"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=334942"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}