If you're of the view that Trump is a fool then its entirely probable that you'll think that he just got up one morning and decided, between his morning coffee and his morning ablutions, that he'd send out a series of tweets making assertions based upon nothing more than a news report.

If on the other hand, you think that Trump is spectacularly savvy you might think that he’s just pulled off a master stroke, weeks in the making.
We know that surveillance was being done – exhibit A..Mike Flynn. We know that there were all sorts of leaks emanating from the deep state about what might or might not have been connections between Trump et al and Putin et al. We know that those trying to delegitimise Trump were doubling down on their Flynn victory by going after Sessions. We have some indications that those associated with Obama might have sought court permission to tap Trump. We have some indications that some in the intelligence community might have briefed Trump on what was going on (Mike Rogers).
So maybe we might conclude that savvy (rather than foolish) Trump knows what he’s doing. Already we’ve seen the Russian stories pushed by the (dis)loyal opposition collapsing. After all they can’t very well continue to claim there’s evidence of collusion without admitting that tapping was going on. So even there Trump has already had a victory. Now we see the MSM trying to say that their previous reports about how evidence was gathered against Trump, wasn’t true. Another, in a long line of wins, of Trump over the MSM.

Most telling for me is the way the Obama sycophants are carefully choosing their words. Obama didn’t order any tapping they assert. And that’s probably true since these people always need plausible deniability and a winks as good as a nod. But they aren’t deny that the tapping might have occurred.

Trump’s set the ball rolling. Investigations will ensue. Popcorn futures just went up.

Thanks MHaze,

"We have some indications that those associated with Obama might have sought court permission to tap Trump."

" ..... the tapping might have occurred."

Thanks again for validating my original points.

Yes, it's possible that Trump isn't the narcissistic idiot that he has patently demonstrated so far, the 'bully at the back of the class', or psychotic. He may actually have a very clever plan. Yes, he may not be as he seems.

Or he may be: he may be even more of a fool than we assume. We'll see. Every day brings new fascinations, after all.

Expect a flurry of law suits. Defamation of a former President is probably some sort of offence, even in the US.

Cheers,

Joe

"Thanks again for validating my original points."

Well if your original points were that we'll have to await developments then, yes I agree. But if that was your point then you might need to re-write your original post since that wasn't what you you said. It was more along the lines of, since you can't see the evidence, there isn't any.

I noticed how you adopted the same stance with regards to the Russia connection as well...<sarc off>.

Yeah, defamation action might be possible for the Obamessiah...if he doesn't mind having all his dirty linen aired in court. On the other hand, using the mechanisms of the state to target political oppenents might also be an actionable offence. Its unlikely they'll find Barry's finger-prints on anything here, but when his underlings are under oath before a Congression investigation of Special Prosecutor, maybe some uncomfortable finger pointing might ensue.

In the meantime, the President can get on with fulfilling his promises to the electorate, while the Clinton/Obama/Democrat machines along with the MSM lick their wounds and fret over what he might have over them. And all because of 4 x 140 character 'bullets'. Now they know what its like to bring a knife to a gunfight.

Hi MHaze,

My point ?

* if you suspect something has happened, you won't need anything as mundane as proof, you already KNOW it's true;

Perhaps I should stress that I don't think this is the way to go. One does need some proof, not just a suspicion, or a 'maybe'.

Do you have anything besides 'might' and 'might have' ?

And given the links that Tillerson, Sessions and Flynn seem to have had with the Russians, via their contacts with FSB head-man Kislyak, which nobody is denying, in this game of 'Might have', that seems to be a stronger possibility than any illegal wire-tapping ordered by Obama.

He who asserts must prove. Nobody is obliged to prove NOT.

Joe

anyone half interested in truth knows that their is only one Man who always told the truth. They hung him on a tree. Trump no doubt has twisted the truth however Obama, Clinton, baby killers and so called climate scientist makes him look good. There are habitual liars and their are some who tell the truth most of the time. Usually the leftist media ignore it when their own lie and then act horrified when they think they have caught others out. The abc is among the worst.

aBC. Does far more good than harm.. They work with police to setup a catch. Which otherwise go undetected. You need proof to take someone to court. To have it in for Griggs is nothing but sour grapes.
Praising Abbott for misleading a nation is only punishable by an opposition.
You need to weigh things up without predgudice..