" “A new ruling by Federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson on Wednesday,” the blog post claims, “has barred Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team may not [ sic ] discuss ‘Russian collusion’ during the trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.”"
Ya, see how the article you linked to is speaking about a blog post? From your quote: " the blog post claims"
Cratic, you just linked us to a fact check page about a blog post, and don’t even realize the fact check results against what you want and that it’s hilarious that you’ve not realized that, at least twice
Maybe read that headline a few times until it clicks for you:
Fact Check: ‘Judge’s New Ruling in Manafort Trial … a Death Blow to Mueller’s Scheme’?
fta:
Magavoter does not elaborate on “Mueller’s scheme” mentioned in the headline (a trope of misinformation-spreading blog posts) nor does it explain how this decision “may be a death blow” to said scheme.
Perhaps you’ll have better reading comprehension with this article… read it slowly…
" A federal judge ruled Wednesday that special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of possible collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign could not be discussed during the upcoming trial of Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who is accused of money laundering, among other crimes."
Oh no worries Cratic, I was able to glean that from your original fact check article.
The other judge did the same thing. No one is surprised. The prosecution didn’t even argue the point because they don’t need to mention the Mueller investigation for this trial.
Remember when you were all hyped thinking the last judge was going to throw the case out? How’d that go?
You should read the conclusion of the first fact check link you posted.
The article says that they can’t discuss collision during the trial. That does not meant that Mueller can’t ask Manafort about collusion in a plea deal.