It is known, even Comey confirmed Trump was not “the subject” (that is the key phrase) of the investigation, nor was any individual person. It’s a technicality that makes their claim true.
When a bank robbery gets investigated, the “subject” of the investigation is the bank robbery.
True, bit Trump is still not “the subject” of any of them. Does not mean it won’t lead to him, but the WH can claim truthfully that Trump is not “the subject” of investigations at this time.
We do not know if Trump himself is or isn’t the ‘subject of the investigation’. That would be accurate. Of course he could be using Trump surrogates as his sources for “multiple people ‘have mad it clear’”. But that would be deliberately misleading, making the statement false.
ETA:
It is known, even Comey confirmed Trump was not “the subject” (that is the key phrase) of the investigation.
I don’t think Comey ever said that. Not completely sure though.
“is” being the key word. I never replied to a comment that said he would not “become” one. That was my whole point, the statement I was referencing said he currently was not the subject, and that is accurate. Kind of like when Cheney said he was told Saddam had nukes. True statement, but his source was a proven liar, but technically Cheney was told Saddam had nukes.
Yup. And Zembla, a program from Dutch Public Broadcasting, shows just how it’s done in “The Dubious Friends of Donald Trump.”
If you happen to watch this excellent investigative documentary bear in mind that these are the same friends of Donnie Jr., Eric, Ivanka, Jared, Manafort, Page, Flynn, Ross, … ah hell, the list is nearly endless. And once the net comes down it’s going to take a fleet of buses to haul them all off.