Certainly looks that way. If he has all this documented evidence, why trawl for whistle-blowers?
This whole mess is looking more and more like the Truth Movement trying to find someone, anyone, to agree with any part of their claims.
Oh, look, an opinion which acknowledges that Nunes is no longer sure what he saw. Pity you can’t do the same.
You didn’t really read it, did you?
If the campaign was the target, the interceptions would not be inadvertent.
Therefore, the campaign was not targeted.
Quote the specific passage that convinced you.
Bonus points if it isn’t:
[QUOTE=The Hill article]
Of course, the original tweets were poorly worded and inappropriate as a way for a president to raise this issue. Moreover, the inadvertent surveillance is rightfully distinguished from the original suggestion of a targeting of Trump. However, this would still be a very serious matter** if **intelligence officials acted to unmask the names and distribute them. The masking of names is meant to protect innocent people from such inadvertent interception as part of the minimization procedures in the surveillance area.
The White House appears unwilling to address the exaggeration and unfairness of the original allegation, while most of the media seems entirely unwilling to admit that there might indeed be an alarming abuse of surveillance rules.
[/QUOTE]
Damning evidence indeed.
You’re assuming Okra didn’t come into this convinced. 
Thanks for the example, BTW.
Yes, Turley definitely is a dyed-in-the-wool rightwinger.
I was referring to you. Perfect example of searching high and low for anyone who agrees with any part of your position, no matter how small.
Okrahoma, do you have evidence or do you recant your claim that ‘Trump was right about wiretaps’?
Ha! Good luck with that.
Yeah, I know. I just love making him dig. 
The problem is he likes digging. And he thinks he’s burying us.
When he said “Obama”, he actually meant “the Obama Administration”… or wait, actually he meant the Federal government as a whole.
When he said “wiretap” he meant any surveillance whatsoever.
When he said “my phone” he meant the phones of anyone in the entire Trump campaign operation, or anyone associated with them.
When he said “in Trump Tower” he meant “in the United States”.
So essentially, if anyone associated with the Trump campaign was incidentally surveilled in any way by anyone in the Federal government anywhere in the United States, Trump is vindicated.
When he said “bad (or sick) person”… well you got me there, I think you’d have to talk to Spicer or Conway to come up with a spin for that one.
Obama sneezed once?
I assumed he was talking about himself.
I wonder if Traitor Trump has tried ordering wiretaps on President Obama. You’d think that would show him how impossible that is.
I don’t think anyone is saying that Trump is equivalent to Putin; we’re saying that Putin is playing Trump and Trump is too dumb to know it.
Nunes says he reviewed the documents in question on the grounds of the White House. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the White House gave him the documents, but it sure casts doubt on the idea that there was a whistleblower who was the source of the material. Your run-of-the-mill GS-whatever working at DOJ, NSA, FBI, or similar agencies doesn’t just get to waltz into the National Security Council office spaces and hold meetings with congressmen.
Note that Nunes has said that he will not reveal the source of the documents, in hopes that more such documents will be coming from similar sources. That sounds all the more fishy now…