- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 3/4/26 at 3:43 pm to idlewatcher
Lol soon!
Text money to Meghan McMassie will expose the truth!
Text money to Meghan McMassie will expose the truth!
Posted on 3/4/26 at 3:47 pm to AlterEd
So what does the subsequent "Motion to Reconsider" mean
"Activity: Motion to Reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection"
From ChatGPT, is this correct?
Bottom Line: Where H. Res. 1100 stands now
?? H. Res. 1100 was not finalized — there was no vote on whether to adopt it on the floor.
?? Today’s “motion to refer” was a procedural step and is now no longer final because the House agreed to reconsider it.
?? The resolution is still alive and could be taken up again.
In congressional procedure, nothing about these steps conclusively “kills” the resolution — it just means the House hasn’t moved it forward yet.
"Activity: Motion to Reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection"
From ChatGPT, is this correct?
Bottom Line: Where H. Res. 1100 stands now
?? H. Res. 1100 was not finalized — there was no vote on whether to adopt it on the floor.
?? Today’s “motion to refer” was a procedural step and is now no longer final because the House agreed to reconsider it.
?? The resolution is still alive and could be taken up again.
In congressional procedure, nothing about these steps conclusively “kills” the resolution — it just means the House hasn’t moved it forward yet.
Posted on 3/4/26 at 3:52 pm to McKinneyTiger
I'm not sure. Grok says no motion to reconsider appears to have been made. But even if it was it won't change anything considering how overwhelmingly it was voted on to send to ethics.
Posted on 3/4/26 at 3:52 pm to mlminbtr
quote:
Am I missing something here? It appears that what was voted on was to release the information to the public and it passed 357 to 65.
They do this shite on purpose so they appear to have voted to release it, but that's not what it really means. It's all obfuscation.
Posted on 3/4/26 at 4:00 pm to Jbird
Do you all ever tire of being constantly wrong about Massie?
Posted on 3/4/26 at 4:01 pm to LittleJerrySeinfield
Lol Meghan going to ever read those names Jerry?
Posted on 3/4/26 at 4:04 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
in light of the Trump NDA case
Explain.
Posted on 3/4/26 at 4:05 pm to LittleJerrySeinfield
quote:
Do you all ever tire of being constantly wrong about Massie?
I gave him credit in this thread. I do wonder why he flip-flopped on naming names. Don’t you wonder why as well?
Posted on 3/4/26 at 4:07 pm to BBONDS25
And people really think the Epstein files will be released.
Too bad Trump can't just override this.
Too bad Trump can't just override this.
Posted on 3/4/26 at 4:08 pm to Jbird
I'll take that as a no.
Posted on 3/4/26 at 4:08 pm to AlterEd
quote:
As Nancy Mace says here, I don't want to hear shite about Epstein files from these fricking creeps who just killed a bill that would require Congress to make public a list of lawmakers who have been using taxpayer funds to pay off sexual harassment victims in DC.
This is why Congressional Recucks can't execute any retribution against the Democratic Socialists or the Bureaucratic State because too many of them are as corrupt and perverted as the Democratic Socialists and Bureaucratic State Skunks.
Posted on 3/4/26 at 4:09 pm to SludgeFactory
quote:
Too bad Trump can't just override this.
We don't need him to. Check my first reply to my OP. Paulina Luna is subpoena'ing the documents in the oversight committee. They can expose them from there.
So I think we will get to the bottom of this anyways, but it's amazing to me that that many of these fricking creeps voted to kill this thing.
Posted on 3/4/26 at 4:10 pm to LittleJerrySeinfield
Take what as a no?
Your clown has done nothing he said he would.
Your clown has done nothing he said he would.
Posted on 3/4/26 at 4:12 pm to AlterEd
quote:
Do we have a link to the vote?
357-65. Nearly all them motherfrickers voted to kill this.
The Vote
It would be no different if a member of congress introduced legislation for a balanced budget amendment, a ban on congressional insider trading or congressional term limits......these rat bastards protect their own and protect the corrupt DC Uniparty system.
Posted on 3/4/26 at 4:19 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Explain
I'm assuming many of those that are voting against making the congressional hush money funds public have had absolutely no issue with the case against Trump allegedly using hugh money and went so far as to charge him with basically campaign finance violation because of it as the justification for the false records claim, even though how they allegedly handled the payment is basically the same way it is accounted for in congress.
This post was edited on 3/4/26 at 4:23 pm
Posted on 3/4/26 at 4:25 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
Interesting. Hadn’t thought of that angle. Hopefully someone forces release of the names.
Posted on 3/4/26 at 4:30 pm to AlterEd
Anna Paulina doing work. I hope they can get their hands on those records.
Posted on 3/4/26 at 4:32 pm to AlterEd
That's fricking pathetic. And politicians think they have the moral high ground on everybody else.
frick them
frick them
Posted on 3/4/26 at 4:59 pm to PaperTiger
quote:
frick them
With a cactus.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News