This got by me when it actually happened, but I guess I was too busy working to pay taxes...
In the No-Laws-Apply-To-Us (NLATU) Obama Administration it is possible to see something otherwise unheard of, unimagined, unbelievable; you can have an Attorney General of the United States taking the FIFTH. Understand, the chief law enforcement officer only subordinate to the President of the United States utilizes the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination in the Iran hostage ransom deal.
Does that mean that Loretta Lynch believes that she could be indicted for something that took place during the ransom negotiations? Is there any other reason to invoke the Fifth Amendment other than out of a fear of prosecution? Is it a legitimate use of the Fifth Amendment to just not want to say something? Isn't there a possible prosecution element to the Fifth that does not apply if it is just something embarrassing, or damaging to a third-party?
It's not like we don't already know that it was a ransom payment in violation of federal law against paying ransom to terrorists, but there is no investigation underway that I am aware of. This was a congressional hearing, but there is no possibility that Barack Obama will be arrested for the violation of this federal law. They can't even arrest a Secretary of State who engaged in trafficking of national secrets for donations to the Clinton Foundation. How on earth would they arrest Barack Obama?
So, if there is no anticipation of imprisonment for her participation in the ransom deal with terrorists, on what grounds is she allowed to claim the protections of the Fifth Amendment? If there are no grounds upon which to claim the protections of the Fifth, then it is simply contempt of Congress, which might carry some repercussions if there were a Congress in session that sought to hold the illegal acts of the Obama Administration accountable in the same way the Congress was determined to hold the Nixon Administration accountable in the 1970's. But, the Republican Congress has long been exposed as the most gutless, lawless and unrepentant Congress in American History and its cowardice has brought the nation to the brink of political collapse that it finds itself.
When there is no political will to enforce the laws of the United States by the Executive Branch, it is the obligation of the Legislative Branch to ensure that the laws passed by the legislature be adhered to. It is why there is the machinery by which a president can be impeached. I'm no fan of Nixon, but I have to give him and the congress credit for holding even the President accountable for the actions taken to violate federal law. At least Nixon resigned rather than be the subject of impeachment, something no Democrat would do, because they could always count on allies in the Congress to stand behind them no matter what sort of crime they had committed, no matter how clear the guilt of the President might be.
What this Congress doesn't understand, or refuses to accept is that by not pursuing impeachment against such obvious illegalities of the Obama Administration, they reveal themselves as racist, because there is no doubt that if Barack Obama was white, he would have been subject of impeachment, which demonstrates that race has played a huge part in their actions. But, they have always taken the coward's way out and be damned the damage done to the union. Their actions, or inaction, have made them complicit in the crimes committed by the Obama Administration from the fraud of Obamacare, to failure to enforce federal immigration laws, to the Clinton emails and the perjury committed by Hillary Clinton and the crimes emanating from Comey's refusal to indict.
It is all one combined demonstration of a government incapable of proper dispensation of justice. Any government incapable of administering the laws of the nation over which they preside is unworthy of obedience on any level. It is a rogue government to be ousted at the pleasure of the people, who suffer the indignity of a corruptocracy.