It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


House Resolution 446...The Draining of the Sewer Begins Today 72717....

page: 18
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 03:21 PM

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: UKTruth

It's the house judiciary.

The Senate version is not on board. In fact they are trying to protect the Russian investigation.

The chances of the house over riding the Senate are very slim.

The House Judiciary Committee is separate body from the Senate Judiciary Committee and operates under different rules. The senate is not required to vote on the House Judiciary Committee's resolution.

edit on 29/7/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 03:23 PM

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: RomeByFire
The swamp isn't drained

Woulda thunk

Sure it was.

Now all the swamp creatures are in full view without all that cloudy water. Trump, the mooch, the kooch, the pooch, all of em.

What happened to the "oh #," moment?

Where are the posters claiming that this was to be believed?

Lol. This thread should be moved to hoax or LOL.

Why would a thread linking the actual Judiciary Committee's amendment deliberations and the full amendment, then backed up with a copy of the letter to the DoJ to request a Special Counsel be in the hoax bin?

Does reality not sit well with you?

Because what you posted is not what the OP nor the title claims?

That's exactly what the thread is about.

posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 02:02 AM

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: iWontGiveUP

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Thanks to carewemust for the link. I felt this particular doc needed a thread of it own....

Appears the sewer is about to be getting plumbed....

Really looking forward to the next few weeks starting today!

The addition of Uranium One, Clinton Foundation donations and the Lynch Tarmac meeting in this are what I'm really looking forward to.


Link to video where resolution was passed via vote

You really don't know how to check things out do you:

There is no such amendment -

The Resolution was passed WITHOUT AMENDMENT!!!!!

Please learn to use the internet - and stop spreading this kind of c**p.


It happened last night

Please watch

Nope, the 'horses' mouth still says - passed WITHOUT AMENDMENT.

Before you look really really silly, please reference the correct page:

A bill is a legislative proposal brought before Congress in either the House or the Senate. Bills introduced in the House are assigned sequential numbers in the order in which they are introduced and are preceded by "H.R.". Bills introduced in the Senate are assigned sequential numbers preceded by "S.".

Stop derailing the discussion with irrelevant links.

Well I learn something new today - the difference between H.R.s and H. Resolutions.

In prior posts I was referring to HRs., which is a proposed Bill or regular legislation where as the subject in question was an H. Res. Or Resolution.

A bill is a legislative proposal brought before Congress in either the House or the Senate. Bills introduced in the House are assigned sequential numbers in the order in which they are introduced and are preceded by "H.R.". Bills introduced in the Senate are assigned sequential numbers preceded by "S.".

However, a resolution has little impact:

A simple resolution, H. Res. or S. Res., is a proposal that addresses matters entirely within the prerogative of one Chamber or the other. It requires neither the approval of the other Chamber nor the signature of the President, and it does not have the force of law. Simple resolutions concern the rules of one Chamber or express the sentiments of a single Chamber. For example, a simple resolution may offer condolences to the family of a deceased Member of Congress, or it may express the opinion of one Chamber or the other on foreign policy or other executive business.

Again my thanks for the education....

posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 03:27 AM
a reply to: FyreByrd

Yeah, resolutions are not laws.
The route to formally start reviewing the issues in the amended resolution requires no law.

posted on Jul, 30 2017 @ 01:54 PM
a reply to: UKTruth

You seem to think this is going to gain ground.

The house judiciary has no where near the same power or standing as the senate.

The house is where all the sensational ultra partisan stuff happens.

What do you in reality think this will do?

You made quite a few claims of how it's over for the demo and comey...

I am willing to bet it gains zero ground of a special council.

posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 11:42 AM
This has now been scheduled - the amended resolution - and the official documents updated.

As a reminder

That the President is requested, and Attorney General of the United States is directed, to transmit, respectively (in a manner appropriate to classified information, if the President or Attorney General determines appropriate), to the House of Representatives, not later than 60 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution, copies of any document, record, audio recording, memo, correspondence, or other communication in their possessions, or any portion of any such communication, that refers or relates to the firing of James B. Comey in the following respects:

(1) Then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch directing James B. Comey to mislead the American people by stating that he should refer to the investigation into the mishandling of classified data and use of an unauthorized email server by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a “matter”, rather than a criminal “investigation”.

(2) Leaks by James B. Comey to Columbia University law professor, Daniel Richman, regarding conversations had between President Donald Trump and then-FBI Director James B. Comey, and how the leaked information was purposefully released to lead to the appointment of special counsel, Robert Mueller, a longtime friend of James B. Comey.

(3) The propriety and consequence of immunity deals given to possible Hillary Clinton co-conspirators Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, John Bentel, and potentially others, by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, during the criminal investigation James B. Comey led into Hillary Clinton’s misconduct.

(4) The decision by James B. Comey to usurp the authority of then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch in his unusual announcement that criminal charges would not be brought against Hillary Clinton following her unlawful use of a private email server and mishandling of classified information.

(5) James B. Comey’s knowledge and impressions of any ex-parte conversation between then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on June 27, 2016, at a Phoenix airport on a private jet.

(6) James B. Comey’s knowledge of the company “Fusion GPS”, including—

(A) its creation of a “dossier” of information about Mr. Donald Trump;

(B) that dossier’s commission and dissemination in the months before and after the 2016 Presidential Election; and

(C) the intelligence sources of Fusion GPS or any person or company working for Fusion GPS or its affiliates.

(7) Any and all potential leaks originated by James B. Comey and provided to author Michael Schmidt dating back to 1993.

(8) James B. Comey’s knowledge of—

(A) the purchase of a majority stake in the company Uranium One by the company Rosatom;

(B) whether the approval of the sale was connected to any donations made to the Clinton Foundation;

(C) what role then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton played in the approval of that sale; and

(D) whether the sale could have affected the national security of the United States of America.

(9) James B. Comey’s refusal to investigate then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding—

(A) selling access to the U.S. State Department through Clinton Foundation donations;

(B) Huma Abedin’s dual employment at the State Department and the Clinton Foundation simultaneously; or

(C) utilization of the State Department to further paid speaking opportunities for her husband.

(10) Any collusion between former FBI Director James B. Comey and special counsel Robert Mueller; including—

(A) the information James B. Comey admitted to leaking to the Columbia University law professor, being intentional such that a special counsel, his longtime friend, Robert Mueller, would be appointed to lead the investigation against the Trump administration; and

(B) any communication between Robert Mueller and James B. Comey in advance of the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.

(11) Whether James B. Comey had any knowledge of—

(A) efforts made by any federal agency—

(i) to monitor communications of then-candidate Donald Trump;

(ii) to assess any knowledge by James B. Comey about the “unmasking” of individuals on Donald Trump’s campaign team, transition team, or both;

(iii) to assess the role that former National Security Adviser Susan Rice played in the unmasking of these individuals; or

(iv) to reveal the purpose served by unmasking any individual or individuals serving on the staff of then-candidate Donald Trump; or

(B) the dissemination of unredacted information to various intelligence agencies, and any attempts to use surveillance of then-candidate Donald Trump for the purposes of damaging the credibility of his campaign, his presidency, or both.

new topics

<< 15  16  17   >>

log in