Gregg Moore
@greggmoore.bsky.social
Retired (actuary, then software architect). In favor of government that works for ordinary people.
Would you also provide a tea-leaf-reading of what the stays mean?
For example: “By its stay in Fulano de Tal v. Trump3.0, the Supreme Court has repealed the 1st and 4th Amendments.”
For example: “By its stay in Fulano de Tal v. Trump3.0, the Supreme Court has repealed the 1st and 4th Amendments.”
November 28, 2025 at 12:38 PM
Would you also provide a tea-leaf-reading of what the stays mean?
For example: “By its stay in Fulano de Tal v. Trump3.0, the Supreme Court has repealed the 1st and 4th Amendments.”
For example: “By its stay in Fulano de Tal v. Trump3.0, the Supreme Court has repealed the 1st and 4th Amendments.”
Telling the truth is cheap these days. Being a professional liar is where the big bucks are. I mean this literally.
November 24, 2025 at 8:58 PM
Telling the truth is cheap these days. Being a professional liar is where the big bucks are. I mean this literally.
The foreman seems obviously to be saying that the new “package”, the one with counts 2 and 3, is what they “agreed on”. Not sure how one can interpret that statement that I quoted any differently than that they voted on it. Which is not to say it is necessarily the truth.
November 22, 2025 at 2:46 AM
The foreman seems obviously to be saying that the new “package”, the one with counts 2 and 3, is what they “agreed on”. Not sure how one can interpret that statement that I quoted any differently than that they voted on it. Which is not to say it is necessarily the truth.
But regardless of which version is correct (if either), one of them has to be wrong.
November 21, 2025 at 10:55 PM
But regardless of which version is correct (if either), one of them has to be wrong.
Foreperson to the court: "the Count Two and Three were then put in a different package, which we agreed on".
Who is the "we" the foreperson is referring to? Seems like that would have to be the Grand Jury, no? Meaning that they did vote on it, according to the (possibly confused) foreperson.
Who is the "we" the foreperson is referring to? Seems like that would have to be the Grand Jury, no? Meaning that they did vote on it, according to the (possibly confused) foreperson.
November 21, 2025 at 10:55 PM
Foreperson to the court: "the Count Two and Three were then put in a different package, which we agreed on".
Who is the "we" the foreperson is referring to? Seems like that would have to be the Grand Jury, no? Meaning that they did vote on it, according to the (possibly confused) foreperson.
Who is the "we" the foreperson is referring to? Seems like that would have to be the Grand Jury, no? Meaning that they did vote on it, according to the (possibly confused) foreperson.
And in her 11/14 Declaration she states rather emphatically that there was no interaction with the GJ that wasn't reflected in the transcript and in her description. This can't be true if a second package was prepared and presented to the GJ for their deliberation and vote.
November 21, 2025 at 9:48 PM
And in her 11/14 Declaration she states rather emphatically that there was no interaction with the GJ that wasn't reflected in the transcript and in her description. This can't be true if a second package was prepared and presented to the GJ for their deliberation and vote.
In this excerpt of her 11/20 Notice she quotes from the testimony of the foreperson saying that there was one vote on 3 counts, then a different package was prepared with just 2 counts (obviously requiring someone interacting with and presenting to the GJ, however minimally), and then a second vote.
November 21, 2025 at 9:40 PM
In this excerpt of her 11/20 Notice she quotes from the testimony of the foreperson saying that there was one vote on 3 counts, then a different package was prepared with just 2 counts (obviously requiring someone interacting with and presenting to the GJ, however minimally), and then a second vote.
In this excerpt of her 11/14 Declaration she asserts there was one GJ deliberation and that “[t]his time represents the grand jury’s private deliberation which was done in secret with no one but the members of the grand jury present”. She says they voted just once, on the 3-count indictment.
November 21, 2025 at 9:39 PM
In this excerpt of her 11/14 Declaration she asserts there was one GJ deliberation and that “[t]his time represents the grand jury’s private deliberation which was done in secret with no one but the members of the grand jury present”. She says they voted just once, on the 3-count indictment.
Good question. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure apply, and here is the rule for recording and transcribing Grand Jury proceedings:
November 21, 2025 at 4:48 PM
Good question. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure apply, and here is the rule for recording and transcribing Grand Jury proceedings:
There is at least an audio (video?) recording and a written transcript but possibly some parts of GJ proceedings were not recorded. The prosecution claims there were two votes by the GJ but apparently the transcript has just one. Are they lying about two votes or is there a gap in the transcript?
November 21, 2025 at 3:38 PM
There is at least an audio (video?) recording and a written transcript but possibly some parts of GJ proceedings were not recorded. The prosecution claims there were two votes by the GJ but apparently the transcript has just one. Are they lying about two votes or is there a gap in the transcript?
But, I think she intentionally conflated the transcripts so people would think what you did.
The transcript that matters is the one with the missing parts. If the Grand Jury voted on the two-count indictment then that vote should be in the video and the transcript (if not for the missing parts).
The transcript that matters is the one with the missing parts. If the Grand Jury voted on the two-count indictment then that vote should be in the video and the transcript (if not for the missing parts).
November 20, 2025 at 10:49 PM
But, I think she intentionally conflated the transcripts so people would think what you did.
The transcript that matters is the one with the missing parts. If the Grand Jury voted on the two-count indictment then that vote should be in the video and the transcript (if not for the missing parts).
The transcript that matters is the one with the missing parts. If the Grand Jury voted on the two-count indictment then that vote should be in the video and the transcript (if not for the missing parts).
No, she says at the beginning;
"The official transcript of the September 25, 2025, proceedings before Magistrate Judge Vaala conclusively refutes that claim..."
And later refers to that as "the official transcript".
The transcript that's missing parts is that of the Grand Jury proceedings.
"The official transcript of the September 25, 2025, proceedings before Magistrate Judge Vaala conclusively refutes that claim..."
And later refers to that as "the official transcript".
The transcript that's missing parts is that of the Grand Jury proceedings.
November 20, 2025 at 10:20 PM
No, she says at the beginning;
"The official transcript of the September 25, 2025, proceedings before Magistrate Judge Vaala conclusively refutes that claim..."
And later refers to that as "the official transcript".
The transcript that's missing parts is that of the Grand Jury proceedings.
"The official transcript of the September 25, 2025, proceedings before Magistrate Judge Vaala conclusively refutes that claim..."
And later refers to that as "the official transcript".
The transcript that's missing parts is that of the Grand Jury proceedings.
Judge Ellis was going to issue this opinion anyway. Doesn't seem like it was actually affected by the Circuit Court action.
And all the Circuit Court did was issue a stay pending appeal. They haven't ruled yet on the merits. So her reasoning is very pertinent.
And all the Circuit Court did was issue a stay pending appeal. They haven't ruled yet on the merits. So her reasoning is very pertinent.
November 20, 2025 at 10:06 PM
Judge Ellis was going to issue this opinion anyway. Doesn't seem like it was actually affected by the Circuit Court action.
And all the Circuit Court did was issue a stay pending appeal. They haven't ruled yet on the merits. So her reasoning is very pertinent.
And all the Circuit Court did was issue a stay pending appeal. They haven't ruled yet on the merits. So her reasoning is very pertinent.
And the court was clearly mistaken in their basis for dismissing the corruption interest. It's clearly the case that independent expenditures can be corrupting.
November 20, 2025 at 12:25 AM
And the court was clearly mistaken in their basis for dismissing the corruption interest. It's clearly the case that independent expenditures can be corrupting.
Sorry, misread your post.
But the government was making an argument that it was the court's place to make that determination, not that it was their choice. They were arguing the legal point. If the court had agreed with the corruption interest they could have allowed limiting ind. expenditures.
But the government was making an argument that it was the court's place to make that determination, not that it was their choice. They were arguing the legal point. If the court had agreed with the corruption interest they could have allowed limiting ind. expenditures.
November 20, 2025 at 12:24 AM
Sorry, misread your post.
But the government was making an argument that it was the court's place to make that determination, not that it was their choice. They were arguing the legal point. If the court had agreed with the corruption interest they could have allowed limiting ind. expenditures.
But the government was making an argument that it was the court's place to make that determination, not that it was their choice. They were arguing the legal point. If the court had agreed with the corruption interest they could have allowed limiting ind. expenditures.
If the court had, on the other hand, accepted the government's argument then they would have ruled that there was justification for limiting independent expenditures (as Buckley did for direct contributions).
The clear and direct ruling on the corruption interest was not obiter dictum.
The clear and direct ruling on the corruption interest was not obiter dictum.
November 20, 2025 at 12:15 AM
If the court had, on the other hand, accepted the government's argument then they would have ruled that there was justification for limiting independent expenditures (as Buckley did for direct contributions).
The clear and direct ruling on the corruption interest was not obiter dictum.
The clear and direct ruling on the corruption interest was not obiter dictum.
The court did reach the corruption question. Clearly they didn't say it was not their place to do since they did it.
The government used the corruption interest as one of their core arguments for limiting independent expenditures. The court dispensed of this argument with their mistaken conclusion.
The government used the corruption interest as one of their core arguments for limiting independent expenditures. The court dispensed of this argument with their mistaken conclusion.
November 20, 2025 at 12:13 AM
The court did reach the corruption question. Clearly they didn't say it was not their place to do since they did it.
The government used the corruption interest as one of their core arguments for limiting independent expenditures. The court dispensed of this argument with their mistaken conclusion.
The government used the corruption interest as one of their core arguments for limiting independent expenditures. The court dispensed of this argument with their mistaken conclusion.
It seems obvious that that conclusion was mistaken.
November 19, 2025 at 10:35 PM
It seems obvious that that conclusion was mistaken.
From the opinion of the court, by Justice Kennedy:
"For the reasons explained above, we now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."
"For the reasons explained above, we now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."
November 19, 2025 at 10:30 PM
From the opinion of the court, by Justice Kennedy:
"For the reasons explained above, we now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."
"For the reasons explained above, we now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."
And it was based on an incorrect conclusion that it would not be corrupting. Any honest person could have anticipated that that foundational assumption was false. But its clearly beyond dispute now that Citizens was corrupting and has corrupted.
November 19, 2025 at 10:16 PM
And it was based on an incorrect conclusion that it would not be corrupting. Any honest person could have anticipated that that foundational assumption was false. But its clearly beyond dispute now that Citizens was corrupting and has corrupted.
Didn't Citizens go way beyond that set of facts and lay out a broad constitutional principle? It clearly has become precedent when that fact scenario is not at all involved, no?
So as I understand the phrase "decided on its facts",no, that's not true. It was decided on broad principles.
So as I understand the phrase "decided on its facts",no, that's not true. It was decided on broad principles.
November 19, 2025 at 10:13 PM
Didn't Citizens go way beyond that set of facts and lay out a broad constitutional principle? It clearly has become precedent when that fact scenario is not at all involved, no?
So as I understand the phrase "decided on its facts",no, that's not true. It was decided on broad principles.
So as I understand the phrase "decided on its facts",no, that's not true. It was decided on broad principles.