Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
59 bytes added ,  04:14, December 23, 2023
By a 9-0 margin on December 22, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected a legal stunt by Jack Smith to appeal a district court ruling in his favor to the U.S. Supreme Court, in order to expedite the politically motivated trial of [[Trump
Line 5: Line 5:  
On November 1, 2023, the federal judge presiding over Jack Smith's prosecution of Trump in Florida complained about Smith's team wasting her time and commented further about them: “I’m not seeing in your position a level of understanding to these realities.”<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2023/11/02/judge-signals-she-may-delay-trump-classified-documents-trial/</ref>
 
On November 1, 2023, the federal judge presiding over Jack Smith's prosecution of Trump in Florida complained about Smith's team wasting her time and commented further about them: “I’m not seeing in your position a level of understanding to these realities.”<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2023/11/02/judge-signals-she-may-delay-trump-classified-documents-trial/</ref>
   −
On December 11, 2023, Smith attempted a legal stunt by appealing a district court ruling in his favor to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], in order to expedite the politically motivated trial of [[Trump]] for prior to the presidential election.
+
By a 9-0 margin on December 22, 2023, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] unanimously rejected a legal stunt by Jack Smith to appeal a district court ruling in his favor to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], in order to expedite the politically motivated trial of [[Trump]] for prior to the presidential election.
    
==Background==
 
==Background==
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,152

edits

Navigation menu