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

a reply to: TheTory

Then why are you refusing to explain why Bush's admin shouldn't be investigated? All I see are deflections and indignation for even bringing him up.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

Those were the original...dated 7/11/17.....this one just came out last night....dont worry....they will all be updated to reflect the new wording soon.

So, you have screen shots of the originals?, however the one on the website is a revision and its going to be updated soon with.. the original?

Maybe I'm more tired than I thought so ill come back in an hour or 2 see if its up.

fingers crossed.

I found a reliable news source (Washington Post)

...amending and replacing a Democratic resolution that was designed to obtain documents about Comey’s firing by President Trump.

An interesting twist. This is going to be an extremely divided Congress; a good time for smaller political parties to take the stage and gain some traction.

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: theantediluvian

They are not in government anymore, therefor they should not be investigated? No wonder the swamp is deeper than anyone thinks. They've got useful idiots repeating the same tired pre-written mediamatters talking points.

Straw man much? I didn't say that people shouldn't be investigated for crimes once they're out of government. I specify crimes here because short of crimes, impropriety by former members of a past administration which might be uncovered by an investigation (and it should be noted that this resolution does not constitute an investigation) could be expected to lead to what exactly?

Nothing? Am I wrong? What would the actual repercussions be? Take a break from your undue excitement to mull that one over.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Anything is possible, VC. Anything is possible.

But I would hold off on saying "there's nothing there" with Trump and pretending that the Democrats are the REAL bad guys.

There is corruption in individuals from both sides of the isle, and there always has been.

Ask yourself why the Reps would open up a can of worms that would take their own side down too. I'm guessing the intent of this committee isn't so pure. I

I'm guessing they want to create drama and chaos and sow doubt about their opponents, not themselves. It's kind of their MO.

*shrug*

It's a swamp, not an aquarium.

If there are slimy repubs, take them too.

Boy, it's like looking in a mirror, ain't it?

So why is it necessary to hijack this bill investigating Trump instead of writing a totally unique bill to uncover these answers? Seems to me that both bills could exist simultaneously if what you said was truly the reason for what the Repubs did.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Oh brother.....maybe you should do some of that research the other libs here can't seem to do either....

Lmao. Research? That's pretty funny considering the typical right-winger OP is an excerpt from The Gateway Pundit and a couple lines of delusional text. But I digress, this thread isn't about low information useful idiots.

Primarily this was a move to block the administration from being asked to provide what they had that might further incriminate those within it. Not that they would have provided it anyway. As was argued in the debate, the resolutions effectively have no teeth anyway.

Secondarily, this was desperate Republicans looking for something to take attention away from the clown show administration with their go to strategy for the past 25 years:

"BUT BUT WHAT ABOUT CLINTON? DERP DERP!"

All the Trump supporter repetition of hollow campaign slogans aside, this sort of political maneuvering typifies "the swamp." Why wouldn't these GOP congressmen want the WH to turn over what they had? Fear of the truth? Putting party before country?

And you say "pull the plug on the swamp" and yet — nobody mentioned in the amendment to the resolution is in government any longer. Doh? Put it together. It's swamp creatures trying to protect the other swamp creatures that swim in their circles.

Moving on.

If that's the text of the amendment to the resolution that was passed — so what? It's a request for the administration to provide anything they have about the Breitbart headlines of the last year. OH NOES!

The original resolution really wasn't that big of a deal but at least it had a purpose — to compel the administration to turn over things they might actually have — this? What documents, recordings, etc do you honestly believe the administration has about 95% of the items in that list of failed talking points?

If there was anything to be had and the administration was in possession of it, why in the world would they have sat on it?

I'm sure you'll still be chanting "lock her up" in three years and wondering why none of the CTs you've heard about from your favorite wingnut outlets but never bothered to research yourself have borne fruit.

But hey, you enjoy your distraction as the most poorly run administration in recent history continues to implode.

CT's?

If Trump was asked to hand over documents to the FBI but bleach bitted them, you would be screaming treason and calling for his head.

Yet you seem to have no problem with Hillary doing that.

Or is it just a conspiracy theory that Hillary's camp did that?

originally posted by: AboveBoard

Are they going after Bush for the million emails he deleated from the RNC server about 911 and WMDs??

No?

Sad.

Why would the RNC servers have a single thing on them about 911 or WMD's or anything Presidential at all? You do not make any sense here. Both the RNC and DNC are PRIVATE organizations. They might violated their own charter by favoring one candidate over another, like with what happened to Bernie, and what the RNC wanted to do to Trump, but neither are governmental in anyway. Breaking their charter i.e. screwing over Bernie against the wishes of their voter based might cost them the election, but does not break any laws.

I think you are confused like with Hillary's illegal unprotected private server that she used to keep Governmental business secret, and the DNC server that was hacked in showing Bernie getting screwed, two totally different events, and not related at all.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Oh brother.....maybe you should do some of that research the other libs here can't seem to do either....

Lmao. Research? That's pretty funny considering the typical right-winger OP is an excerpt from The Gateway Pundit and a couple lines of delusional text. But I digress, this thread isn't about low information useful idiots.

Primarily this was a move to block the administration from being asked to provide what they had that might further incriminate those within it. Not that they would have provided it anyway. As was argued in the debate, the resolutions effectively have no teeth anyway.

Secondarily, this was desperate Republicans looking for something to take attention away from the clown show administration with their go to strategy for the past 25 years:

"BUT BUT WHAT ABOUT CLINTON? DERP DERP!"

All the Trump supporter repetition of hollow campaign slogans aside, this sort of political maneuvering typifies "the swamp." Why wouldn't these GOP congressmen want the WH to turn over what they had? Fear of the truth? Putting party before country?

And you say "pull the plug on the swamp" and yet — nobody mentioned in the amendment to the resolution is in government any longer. Doh? Put it together. It's swamp creatures trying to protect the other swamp creatures that swim in their circles.

Moving on.

If that's the text of the amendment to the resolution that was passed — so what? It's a request for the administration to provide anything they have about the Breitbart headlines of the last year. OH NOES!

The original resolution really wasn't that big of a deal but at least it had a purpose — to compel the administration to turn over things they might actually have — this? What documents, recordings, etc do you honestly believe the administration has about 95% of the items in that list of failed talking points?

If there was anything to be had and the administration was in possession of it, why in the world would they have sat on it?

I'm sure you'll still be chanting "lock her up" in three years and wondering why none of the CTs you've heard about from your favorite wingnut outlets but never bothered to research yourself have borne fruit.

But hey, you enjoy your distraction as the most poorly run administration in recent history continues to implode.

CT's?

If Trump was asked to hand over documents to the FBI but bleach bitted them, you would be screaming treason and calling for his head.

Yet you seem to have no problem with Hillary doing that.

Or is it just a conspiracy theory that Hillary's camp did that?

Funny part is that the very under-reported story is that the FBI DOES have those 33k emails....they actually have 100K and recently released 7K more to the State Department. A company called Datto accidentally backed up Hillary's Server to the cloud....whoops!

Hmmm...now if they aren't actually still investigating anything, why are they still recovering emails at this point? Strange right?

Link to FBI still uncovering emails...

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Which is my point.


This whole story is a non story.


The fbi is doing the investigation. Like I keep saying. The LAST thing the investigators want is to disclose an investigation prematurely.

The fbi is already currently investigating the elections in general. Very deeply.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Not even close. This HR only just passed a committee. It isn't a full law yet that has been voted on by the whole House.

The House of Republicans....which has already been aware of this measure and likely ready to pass it quickly....

So when nothing comes of this will you come to me and admit you jumped to conclusions? I'm guessing you'll just bitch instead.

Sure will. Guessing that means you'll also come to me and admit you were wrong when people begin to drop.

Oh you mean like how 2 showed up in the news in the same week (not dead same week actually), both "suicides" in hotel rooms?

Peter W. Smith, GOP operative who sought Clinton's emails from Russian hackers, committed suicide, records show

Former Haiti government official shoots himself in the head in Miami-area hotel

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Oh brother.....maybe you should do some of that research the other libs here can't seem to do either....

Lmao. Research? That's pretty funny considering the typical right-winger OP is an excerpt from The Gateway Pundit and a couple lines of delusional text. But I digress, this thread isn't about low information useful idiots.

Primarily this was a move to block the administration from being asked to provide what they had that might further incriminate those within it. Not that they would have provided it anyway. As was argued in the debate, the resolutions effectively have no teeth anyway.

Secondarily, this was desperate Republicans looking for something to take attention away from the clown show administration with their go to strategy for the past 25 years:

"BUT BUT WHAT ABOUT CLINTON? DERP DERP!"

All the Trump supporter repetition of hollow campaign slogans aside, this sort of political maneuvering typifies "the swamp." Why wouldn't these GOP congressmen want the WH to turn over what they had? Fear of the truth? Putting party before country?

And you say "pull the plug on the swamp" and yet — nobody mentioned in the amendment to the resolution is in government any longer. Doh? Put it together. It's swamp creatures trying to protect the other swamp creatures that swim in their circles.

Moving on.

If that's the text of the amendment to the resolution that was passed — so what? It's a request for the administration to provide anything they have about the Breitbart headlines of the last year. OH NOES!

The original resolution really wasn't that big of a deal but at least it had a purpose — to compel the administration to turn over things they might actually have — this? What documents, recordings, etc do you honestly believe the administration has about 95% of the items in that list of failed talking points?

If there was anything to be had and the administration was in possession of it, why in the world would they have sat on it?

I'm sure you'll still be chanting "lock her up" in three years and wondering why none of the CTs you've heard about from your favorite wingnut outlets but never bothered to research yourself have borne fruit.

But hey, you enjoy your distraction as the most poorly run administration in recent history continues to implode.

CT's?

If Trump was asked to hand over documents to the FBI but bleach bitted them, you would be screaming treason and calling for his head.

Yet you seem to have no problem with Hillary doing that.

Or is it just a conspiracy theory that Hillary's camp did that?

Funny part is that the very under-reported story is that the FBI DOES have those 33k emails....they actually have 100K and recently released 7K more to the State Department. A company called Datto accidentally backed up Hillary's Server to the cloud....whoops!

Hmmm...now if they aren't actually still investigating anything, why are they still recovering emails at this point? Strange right?

Link to FBI still uncovering emails...

Does the FBI have the 33k now?

I know the State Dept. and Hillary's lawyer had them on a flash drive. No doubt about that part.

a reply to: Grambler

If Trump was asked to hand over documents to the FI< but bleach bitted them, you would be screaming treason and calling for his head.

Yet you seem to have no problem with Hillary doing that.

Or is it just a conspiracy theory that Hillary's camp did that?

I was speaking to what's contained in the copy of the amendment to the resolution presented in the OP. They didn't ask the Trump admin to provide information regarding Chery Mills directing a Platte River Networks employee to use BleachBit.

It's interesting that you should mention that though because it seems that Jared Kushner and others in the administration are using Signal, possibly to violate the Presidential Records Act. Does that concern you?

More specifically, when I wrote "CT," I was thinking about Uranium One, "collusion" between Comey and Mueller, the wiretapping of Trump nonsense and the Trump dossier — which are all covered in the text.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Which is my point.


This whole story is a non story.


The fbi is doing the investigation. Like I keep saying. The LAST thing the investigators want is to disclose an investigation prematurely.

The fbi is already currently investigating the elections in general. Very deeply.

Time will tell just how big the story becomes.

This is opening the door to a much larger investigation scope and there is already a movement for a special counsel....my guess is Mueller will be appointed over it all.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Why would the RNC servers have a single thing on them about 911 or WMD's or anything Presidential at all? You do not make any sense here. Both the RNC and DNC are PRIVATE organizations. They might violated their own charter by favoring one candidate over another, like with what happened to Bernie, and what the RNC wanted to do to Trump, but neither are governmental in anyway. Breaking their charter i.e. screwing over Bernie against the wishes of their voter based might cost them the election, but does not break any laws.

Yeah. I'd like to see the RNC's emails about them nuking Ron Paul two elections in a row. And see them get popped inside a microwave for it.

People still continuing the "lock her up," rhetoric

If I had a dollar for every thread that's been claimed to be the "bombshell," I'd have enough money to prosecute her myself.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Oh brother.....maybe you should do some of that research the other libs here can't seem to do either....

Lmao. Research? That's pretty funny considering the typical right-winger OP is an excerpt from The Gateway Pundit and a couple lines of delusional text. But I digress, this thread isn't about low information useful idiots.

Primarily this was a move to block the administration from being asked to provide what they had that might further incriminate those within it. Not that they would have provided it anyway. As was argued in the debate, the resolutions effectively have no teeth anyway.

Secondarily, this was desperate Republicans looking for something to take attention away from the clown show administration with their go to strategy for the past 25 years:

"BUT BUT WHAT ABOUT CLINTON? DERP DERP!"

All the Trump supporter repetition of hollow campaign slogans aside, this sort of political maneuvering typifies "the swamp." Why wouldn't these GOP congressmen want the WH to turn over what they had? Fear of the truth? Putting party before country?

And you say "pull the plug on the swamp" and yet — nobody mentioned in the amendment to the resolution is in government any longer. Doh? Put it together. It's swamp creatures trying to protect the other swamp creatures that swim in their circles.

Moving on.

If that's the text of the amendment to the resolution that was passed — so what? It's a request for the administration to provide anything they have about the Breitbart headlines of the last year. OH NOES!

The original resolution really wasn't that big of a deal but at least it had a purpose — to compel the administration to turn over things they might actually have — this? What documents, recordings, etc do you honestly believe the administration has about 95% of the items in that list of failed talking points?

If there was anything to be had and the administration was in possession of it, why in the world would they have sat on it?

I'm sure you'll still be chanting "lock her up" in three years and wondering why none of the CTs you've heard about from your favorite wingnut outlets but never bothered to research yourself have borne fruit.

But hey, you enjoy your distraction as the most poorly run administration in recent history continues to implode.

CT's?

If Trump was asked to hand over documents to the FBI but bleach bitted them, you would be screaming treason and calling for his head.

Yet you seem to have no problem with Hillary doing that.

Or is it just a conspiracy theory that Hillary's camp did that?

Funny part is that the very under-reported story is that the FBI DOES have those 33k emails....they actually have 100K and recently released 7K more to the State Department. A company called Datto accidentally backed up Hillary's Server to the cloud....whoops!

Hmmm...now if they aren't actually still investigating anything, why are they still recovering emails at this point? Strange right?

Link to FBI still uncovering emails...

Does the FBI have the 33k now?

I know the State Dept. and Hillary's lawyer had them on a flash drive. No doubt about that part.

From the story in the link I provided...

Last week, the FBI apparently gave the State Department a new disc of records relating to the Clinton email lawsuit. Judicial Watch is seeking those records, along with any documents and materials that have surfaced from Weiner’s laptop.

The court ordered in November 2016 that the State Department process documents at the rate of 500 pages per month, of the 33,000 emails Clinton allegedly attempted to her non-government server.

Had them since November 2016. They even have the server. Datto accidentally backed her server up to the cloud.

server

The State Department will release all of the work-related emails that the FBI recovered from Hillary Clinton’s private system, the department confirmed in a recent court filing, eliminating the possibility that the messages will remain secret.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

If Trump was asked to hand over documents to the FI< but bleach bitted them, you would be screaming treason and calling for his head.

Yet you seem to have no problem with Hillary doing that.

Or is it just a conspiracy theory that Hillary's camp did that?

I was speaking to what's contained in the copy of the amendment to the resolution presented in the OP. They didn't ask the Trump admin to provide information regarding Chery Mills directing a Platte River Networks employee to use BleachBit.

It's interesting that you should mention that though because it seems that Jared Kushner and others in the administration are using Signal, possibly to violate the Presidential Records Act. Does that concern you?

More specifically, when I wrote "CT," I was thinking about Uranium One, "collusion" between Comey and Mueller, the wiretapping of Trump nonsense and the Trump dossier — which are all covered in the text.

I haven't heard of Kushner and this sgnals thing, but yes that would be concerning.

But being specifically asked to hand over info, and then intentionally deleting it is a different level, and it seems not many trump haters are all that concerned with this blatant disregard and thumbing their noses at the law.

Hell, we even had the guy who bleach bitted it asking people on reddit how to get a VIP's name off of emails that were requested by investigators. Yet the dems feel this investigation into Hillary was on the up and up, and want to look at russian pee hookers instead.

And I again find the writing off of trumps wiretap claim to be troubling.

Yes it seems his precise language was wrong, he wasn't wiretapped. Instead the Obama admin unmasked tons of people in his campaign and connected to him illegally.

And yet apparently you are more concerned with Trump hyperbolic claim of this being wiretapping than you are that Obama actually was using intelligence agencies to hurt his political opponents.

a reply to: RomeByFire

Just because she set her self up as the most above the law woman in US history doesn't mean she isn't a war mongering mass murdering terrorist colluding drug running POS career criminal whom deserves history's ultimate show trial to set the example of the Millennium that The People will not tolerate corruption of her kind ever again.

But keep on deluding yourself for party everyone. The Party before The People woohoo!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheTory

Then why are you refusing to explain why Bush's admin shouldn't be investigated? All I see are deflections and indignation for even bringing him up.

I never said they shouldn't. Again, lies and dishonesty, which you've used to deflect from what I've said.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Yeah. I'd like to see the RNC's emails about them nuking Ron Paul two elections in a row. And them them get popped inside a microwave for it.

I don't see it with 2008 but with 2012 he had a good chance and maybe we saw the same thing as with Hillary in pushing the least winnable candidate forward.

a reply to: TheTory

Asking you a question and then remarking on my observations isn't a lie or a deflection. Do you not know the definitions of those two words?