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?