PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 26, 2017
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that a special counsel should be appointed by the Department of Justice to investigate:
then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch directing Comey to refer to the investigation into the handling 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;
Comey's leaks to Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman regarding conversations between Lynch and President Trump and how the leaked information was released to lead to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller;
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
the propriety and consequence of immunity deals given to Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, John Bentel, and potentially others by the FBI during the criminal investigation into Clinton's conduct;
Comey's decision to usurp Lynch's authority in announcing that criminal charges would not be brought against Clinton regarding her use of a private email server and handling of classified information;
Comey's knowledge and impressions of any ex-parte conversation between Lynch and former President Bill Clinton on June 27, 2016, at a Phoenix airport on a private jet;
Comey's knowledge of the company Fusion GPS and its creation of a dossier on Donald Trump;
any potential leaks by Comey to author Michael Schmidt dating back to 1993;
Comey's knowledge of the purchase of a majority stake in Uranium One by Rosatom;
Comey's refusal to investigate Hillary Clinton regarding selling access to the Department of State through Clinton Foundation donations, Huma Abedin's dual employment at such entities simultaneously, or utilization of the State Department to further paid speaking opportunities for her husband;
any collusion between Comey and Robert Mueller;
whether Comey had any knowledge of efforts made by any federal agency to monitor communications of then-candidate Donald Trump, to assess Comey's knowledge about the unmasking of individuals on Donald Trump's campaign team, transition team, or both, to assess the role that former National Security Adviser Susan Rice played in the unmasking of such individuals, or to reveal the purpose served by unmasking any individuals serving on the staff of Donald Trump; and
whether Comey had any knowledge of the dissemination of unredacted information to various intelligence agencies and of any attempts to use surveillance of Donald Trump to damage the credibility of his campaign, presidency, or both.
People & committees
Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL-1] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 3, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.Res.477 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.Res.477 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.Res.477 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.Res.477 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.