Would this constitute retroactive rejection of a treaty that was never submitted to them, even though they waived that constitutional power of their own accord? And what will they do when they discover that Obama will never stop moving the "goal posts" in the mullahs' direction?:
Congress is investigating whether the Obama administration has been offering concessions or rewriting the terms of the nuclear deal with Iran, reported the Washington Free Beacon.
"The gap between their promises on the Iran nuclear deal and today's scary reality continues to widen," said Representative Mike Pompeo. "We are now trying to determine whether this was intentional deception on the part of the administration or new levels of disturbing acquiescence to the Iranians."
Like the two are mutually exclusive instead of mutually reinforcing.
One issue is [Commissar] of State John Kerry's claim that ballistic tests were part of the deal, but the administration's later comments that they are outside the deal.
Hamid Bayeedinejad, Iran's director-general for political and international security affairs at foreign ministry, said to Fars News Agency that their ballistic missile program is outside the ban.
Another issue centers around Treasury [Commissariat] statements that suggest the U.S. is allowing Iran access to the U.S. financial system after Iran demanded it.
"The Obama administration is involved in yet another sleight of hand on sanctions relief as well as the status of U.N. missile sanctions," said Mike Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Of course they are. That's why the "deal" was never submitted to Congress as a treaty; because it was always intended to be as "living and breathing" a document as leftists insist the Constitution is. Ditto with all the secret "side deals" that the White House wouldn't allow anybody else to see and still refuse to permit to this day. They're essentially re-writing "deal" stipulations on the fly that nobody outside Tehran and the White House has ever seen, which logically means that Congress hasn't even a starting point from which to even begin an investigation. And since they were the ones who preemptively signed off on O's not having to call the "deal" a treaty and submit to Congress for review in the first place, their belated "concerns" look scarcely any less phony-baloney plastic banana than the ongoing, "legacy"-protecting, mullah-fellation of The One.
Amazing it is how clarity reasserts itself when parties no longer have a reason to cloud it:
Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin pointed out the "legal distinction" in the "deal's" wording.
He said, "A call is different from a ban so legally you cannot violate a call, you can comply with a call or you can ignore the call, but you cannot violate a call."
The lawmakers rejected that claim, saying it allows Iran "to do anything it wants."
Precisely. Something neither the mullahs nor their Russian sponsors have any reason not to crow about openly, but which the Obama Regime prefers to keep quiet.
Why, I couldn't say. It's not like congressional Republicans can "investigate" their way out of a paper bag, anyway, even to cover their own asses.