Almost four months ago, allies of Donald Trump found themselves consumed by a scandal so mind-boggling, they felt sure it would turn the political world on its head. “Watergate times a thousand,” Sean Hannity warned. “This is 100 times bigger [than what led to the American Revolution],” Sebastian Gorka insisted. “[This is] a component of what looks like a much larger conspiracy involving the #Obama DOJ & FBI & more,” tweeted Iowa Rep. Steve King, clearly incensed. They were referring to a memo compiled by G.O.P. Congressman Devin Nunes, which allegedly revealed abuses of surveillance power by key members of the Justice Department and F.B.I., including James Comey, his former deputy Andrew McCabe, and current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Yet when the memo itself was revealed to the public, it turned out to be such a hopeless dud that the conspiracy around it dissipated almost immediately.

It seems the cycle may repeat with the president’s newest pet theory, perhaps his most desperate attempt yet to discredit Robert Mueller: that the F.B.I. planted an illegal “spy” within his campaign for political purposes. Despite his feverish claims, which continued into Friday, that #SPYGATE “could be one of the biggest political scandals in history”—“Can anyone even imagine having Spies placed in a competing campaign, by the people and party in absolute power, for the sole purpose of political advantage and gain?” he tweeted Friday morning—a small group of lawmakers who met with F.B.I. and D.O.J. officials to be briefed on their use of an “informant” came away wholly unimpressed.

“Nothing we heard today has changed our view that there is no evidence to support any allegation that the F.B.I. or any intelligence agency placed a spy in the Trump campaign or otherwise failed to follow appropriate procedures and protocols,” ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff told reporters, speaking on behalf of all the Democrats who attended, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Republicans, in contrast, have been uncharacteristically mum since the Thursday meetings, with Nunes choosing not to comment and House Speaker Paul Ryan simply saying, “I cannot and will not comment on a classified session . . . I look forward to the prompt completion of the intelligence committee’s oversight work in this area.” A source familiar with one of the meetings told Reuters that Nunes “did not speak at all,” and that his Republican colleagues “did not aggressively push or defend Trump’s spying allegations.”

For weeks, a group of Republican lawmakers, led by Nunes, had pressed top law-enforcement officials to give them information on the use of an F.B.I. informant who reportedly made contact with three members of the Trump campaign during the early stages of the D.O.J. investigation. But Rosenstein, along with F.B.I. Director Christopher Wray and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, refused, arguing that complying would jeopardize a critical intelligence source. (Multiple outlets have since confirmed that the informant was Stefan Halper, a former Cambridge University professor.) Yet they were seemingly strong-armed by Trump’s escalating tantrums, which reached a peak on Sunday night when he “demand[ed] . . . that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes - and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!” In a savvy half-capitulation, Rosenstein agreed to have Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who is already investigating the handling of the Hillary Clinton e-mail probe and the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, look into it.

If legal experts were alarmed by the flimsy innuendo of #MemoGate, they were even more perturbed by the president’s eagerness to probe an ongoing investigation into his own campaign. “There is a reason why there has been a strict independence of the Justice Department when it comes to sensitive investigations,” Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general under Barack Obama, told me. “It is to avoid precisely the appearance, if not the reality, of government cover-ups.” Trump’s actions, he added, “are Exhibit A for why we needed a special counsel in the first place. That someone who behaves with this callous disregard for the rule of law when it comes to an investigation is exactly the reason why you need an independent investigation of him.”

The appearance of White House Russia lawyer Emmet Flood and Chief of Staff John Kelly at the beginning of Thursday’s briefings only compounded Trump’s optics problem. “Although he did not participate in the meetings which followed, as the White House’s attorney handling the special counsel’s investigation, his involvement—in any capacity—was entirely improper,” Schiff, who was reportedly one of at least two lawmakers who contested Flood’s presence, told The New York Times. (Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer in the Russia investigation, defended the move, arguing that the legal team is “certainly entitled to know” what information the F.B.I. has about the use of an informant.) Still, optics only mean so much in a hyper-polarized media environment. Should spygate fall as flat as Nunes-gate, the president is unlikely to lose the support of his conservative base, which has already accepted the president’s insinuations as reality. Trump is counting on the degradation of Mueller’s credibility, after all, to protect him in case he is impeached. But the conspicuous silence from Republican lawmakers after Thursday’s meeting is not a good sign for a president who will need their support if, or when, the special counsel comes calling.