If you want to know what a Trump dead-ender looks like, look no further than CPAC's Matt Schlapp.
This video is hilarious because Craig Melvin does such a good job of not allowing Schlapp to play the "hog the segment" game. So often conservatives pretend they are "responding" to a statement when they are just running out the clock with talking points. Melvin does not let Schlapp get away with that.
SCHLAPP: I believe, Craig, it's very plausible that the Obama administration surveilled Hillary Clinton's opponent's campaign. If I'm wrong about that --
MELVIN: You believe this? Despite the fact we have heard evidence to the contrary so far from just about everyone else on Capitol Hill?
SCHLAPP: That's not right. If you look at what they have said, actually the Republicans have said, that it's still plausible it happened. They have seen no evidence it happened. I do believe the evidence should determine this.
MELVIN: That makes no sense. To say something is plausible and you see no evidence,
SCHLAPP: they are still investigating what happened here.
MELVIN: You are convinced there's a smoking gun out there?
SCHLAPP: Why hasn't "The New York Times" taken back --
MELVIN: I can't speak for "The New York Times," I don't work for "The New York Times."
SCHLAPP: What about the ties between the Trump campaign and Russia that it's under investigation. You have reported that on this many times is that true or not true?
MELVIN: There are investigations. That is true.
SCHLAPP: When you do an investigation, what do you do?
MELVIN: We heard from the head of the House and Senate who said they have seen no evidence.
SCHLAPP: That's correct. That's correct.
MELVIN: You are still holding hope there's evidence?
SCHLAPP: I'm not hoping anything. Devin Nunez, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said it is plausible and they are continuing to look at the facts. I would like to see what these investigations determine and I think that will help us all understand what folks who I respect in the media have been reporting these investigations have gone on--that conversations were intercepted by our government and that was done by Obama, by the Obama administration during a very heated campaign. If there are reasons to do that, I want to hear them. They better be damn good because we have never seen this in our politics ever that one administration starts investigating the opponent.
MELVIN: We have never seen the President of the United States accuse a former president of tapping phones and providing absolutely no evidence for the subsequent two weeks. I would also point out, Matt
SCHLAPP: -- let me try to answer.
MELVIN: That wasn't a question, no need to answer. I would point out if Mr. Spicer, yesterday, in his news conference accuses Britain's intelligence agency, then 12 hours later says I won't say that in public anymore, why do that?
SCHLAPP: You have a very fair point there. I think apologizing to our most important ally is the right thing to do.
MELVIN: Apologize --
SCHLAPP: As somebody who worked for President George W. Bush. Barack Obama threw George W. Bush under the bus every day for eight years. The idea that President Trump is the only person that has gone after their predecessor is absurd.
MELVIN: There's never been a president that accused his predecessor of a felony.
SCHLAPP: They basically called Bush and Cheney war criminals. Please.
MELVIN: Matt Schlapp we'll leave it there. Always good to see you, Matt.
end transcript --
These Trump surrogates have nothing but conflating investigations of Russia's interference with our election with "surveillance of Trump Tower" and it's a flaming high wire they are on. When real investigations reveal real meddling and a real collusion between Putin and people who work on the Trump campaign, all of them will go down. Save this clip.