Okay, as I've said before, Trump employs a fast-and-loose style. He doesn't attempt to hide it at all. When he's defending it, he points to probabilities: how often he turns out to have been right or at other times (other issues), on to something. Other Presidents have played fast and loose with the facts but never wanted to admit it or appear to the masses to be doing it.That doesn't make Trump's style right. The others were wrong and not even less so.
Playing fast and loose with the facts is just plain stupid. Sometimes, even people who don't do it or who try to avoid it make mistakes. Owning up to that is the sign of a good character.
If Donald Trump wants to openly wing it more than any other President in history, fine. However, he needs to qualified his statements in real time. He needs to say that he's engaging in open speculation or that he's referring to statements by others that he doesn't know have been substantiated or not. That would be refreshing coming from any President!
Those out to get Trump are going to fail, however, if they are going to attempt to hold him to selective connotations of the terms he uses just to suit their purposes. Everyone has to learn to see the various ways things can be taken and only seek greater clarity were ambiguities might lead to otherwise needless trouble.
As for the mundane politics of Trump running with an NYT headline using the term "wiretap" or "wiretapping" and stretching the term "campaign" to allow Trump to say he was under surveillance under the Obama administration (as the unified Presidency, meaning at Obama's command or approval or allowance), he should have said 1) the NYT story was an allegation 2) he thinks surveilling his campaign is in a sense, surveilling him and 3) he's referring to the intelligence community (surveilling his campaign) as part of the unified executive concerning which, the buck stopped with President Obama. He needed to do that at the time he made the statement (posted the Tweet). That said, politically again, it still was a bad idea to even bring it up.
If he had not raised it, then all of the focus could have remained on the fact that there is zero hard-evidence that Putin and the Russian state conducted, ordered, or condoned any hacking or interference in the US election. The term "circumstantial" is been thrown around, but there isn't any credible reason to ascribe the term "evidence," whether circumstantial or otherwise, to much of what is being suggested is such against the Russians.
News coverage by Russia about the US election is not interference. Russians favoring any particular outcome is not interfering. The US covers elections all over the world, and Americans (public and private) openly voice what they'd like to see as the outcome.
The preponderance of evidence clearly shows that the entire dust-up about Russia is a fake-news red herring. The focus should be on the who, what, where, when, why, and how much concerning the Democratic primaries in which the Party leadership clearly connived to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination.