And it's absurd to conclude President Ovama was not aware of it.
If the President were merely aware of an impending FBI raid of a child-porn ring, would you find this headline to be accurate or suck-up pandering:
"President busts child-porn ring"
Shouldn't that headline be "
FBI busts child-porn ring"?
How much involvement would a President have to have before we'd find it accurate to give him credit for busting a child-porn ring?
For me, it'd have to be some pretty unusual and significant involvement.
If the President were merely aware that the FBI was trying to bust some sex-traffickers, that wouldn't be enough for me to start giving the President credit for the hard work the FBI guys.
Does that assessment of language and credit sound reasonable to you?
Wiretapping doesn't seem implausible. Wiretapping the HQ of the GOP candidate for President? With the President's knowledge? It seems reasonable speculation in such circumstances.
Lot's of things seem plausible.
We're both aware that plausible is not the same thing as "actually true".
Trump is The Boss of the executive branch.
He doesn't have to speculate—he can verify.
As Hayden said, perhaps Trump forgot that he was President.
The WH came out the very next day to 'clarify' that Trump was not actually accusing Obama of having Trump's phone tapped—Trump was just asking about
IF it happened.
Huckabee Sanders, Spicer, and Nunes have all come out saying that the PotUS was not making an accusation. Trump actually was just asking about
IF Obama had tapped Trump's phones.
The WH's inability to back the tweets, combined with the general lack of available evidence supporting the specific charge, combined with Trump's self declared strategy of making hyperbolic statements, make me want to rule out the possibility that Trump was speaking hyperbolically before I get ready to start buying into conspiracy theories.
Let's rule out the simpler explanations first before we go propagating unnecessary entities in our theory.
