She was not on trial.
She did not plead the Fifth.
She did not answer the questions that the Republicans in Congress wanted answered.
They know, and anyone who has been paying attention knows, that the 1.7 billion was Iranian assets to begin with.
This is yet another non story blown up to be something that it is not.
Have you ever, even once, read an article that pointed to nefarious activity by the Democrat party without summarily dismissing it?
Because, you know, that might indicate a bias problem.....just saying
Let's make this clear.....Ms. Lynch may have gone a step more sinister than pleading the 5th.
She probably feels that her position, with the protections afforded from the white House and supposedly from the next presumed President, is beyond reproach. Literally, above the law.
She declines to cooperate with an investigation led by Congressional leaders.. Why? What powers has the right exhibited in recent years to give someone like the head of the DOJ reason to fear?
This is not in the spirit of transparent government For The People, By The People in any way I can imagine.
As far as the Iranian assets,...The deal was supposed to be the unfreezing of assets IN EXCHANGE for certain reductions or curtailment of Iranian nuclear weapons ambitions.
Iran has Clearly broken the terms of the agreement and openly stated they will not adhere to any nuclear restrictions that interfere with it's national "defense" objectives.
But rhetoric from Iran clearly indicates "defense" means offense.
In other words, they agreed to nothing in exchange for the money. While it may have been theirs, we are dealing with a nation sworn to our destruction and the destruction of other nations.
In some ways like North Korea. You don't "fund" those types of regimes.
Conversely to your statement, it would appear you are underestimating or dismissing significant events.
