It should never be said that Donald Trump’s social-media missives do not carry immense weight. The president’s tweet from the morning of March 4 continues to consume all of Washington and has set into motion events no one, including the president, can control. No, not the tweet about “Celebrity Apprentice” host Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ratings. The other one.

Trump’s contention that Barack Obama’s administration wiretapped his offices has frenzied the nation’s political officials. No one outside the administration supports this claim, but a more narrowly tailored claim that Trump officials were improperly exposed to scrutiny by Obama-era intelligence officials had merit. Unfortunately, their counterclaim has now been diluted and confused to the point of virtual worthlessness.

It’s unlikely that the voting public is closely following the daily intrigues characterizing Congress’s investigations into Russia’s influence on the 2016 race, Team Trump’s alleged ties to Moscow, or the administration’s defense of itself. That is, in part, because the near daily stream of developments is arcane and procedural. This complexity contrasts with the simplicity of the complaints that have stained the Trump White House.

The average American has so far seen quite a bit of disquieting evidence supporting the notion that President Donald Trump displayed a reckless disregard for American national security. Trump’s national security advisor, former General Mike Flynn, was compelled to resign after allowing the vice president to go to the public with information he knew to be false. In the days that followed, Flynn retroactively registered as a foreign agent who worked on behalf of the increasingly authoritarian and vaguely Islamist Turkish government.

Americans soon learned Flynn had not disclosed tens of thousands of dollars in payments received by Russian entities with links to the Kremlin. Trump’s former NSA is now reportedly seeking immunity to testify before Congress. In combination with the revelation that the FBI has been investigating the Trump campaign’s links to Russia for the better part of a year, these revelations only give the public reason for grave fears about the competence and impartiality of the Trump administration.

Team Trump responded to all this with a perfectly valid complaint. The revelation that Flynn had misled Vice President Mike Pence only occurred after Flynn was captured communicating with Russia’s ambassador to the United States and discussing forthcoming administration policy. Nothing he did violated the law. He was caught on tape as part of routine surveillance of Russian diplomatic traffic, but his name was “unmasked, ” and the transcript of that communication was related to reporters. This, it was assumed, was part of an effort by boastful former Obama administration officials to leave a trail of intelligence regarding the Trump campaign and transition team’s links to Russia that could not be buried once the new president took office.

If the Trump administration had stopped there, its case would have been a strong one. They could credibly argue that the last administration scuttled the norms of conduct involving the incidental surveillance of American civilians in their effort to smear the Trump White House. But they didn’t stop there. In the Trump administration’s myopic and obsessive effort to confirm the truth of Trump’s claim—that Obama administration officials targeted him and his organization with surveillance—the White House’s water carriers have confused the issue.

According to allegations made by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, it wasn’t just Flynn but a series of Trump administration officials who were “unmasked” after being caught in the incidental collection of intelligence. The exposure of those administration officials, Trump associates argue, had nothing to do with the standard conduct of U.S. foreign affairs or Russia, and could only be construed as vindictive or worse. This claim would be buttressed by the unsourced statements of Obama administration officials who bragged to reporters about their selfless efforts to tarnish the Trump administration.

The Trump administration’s argument has now sprawled, however, to include the identities of those who requested the unmasking of Trump administration officials—including former National Security Advisor Susan Rice. The mere mention of the name Susan Rice triggers a powerful partisan impulse to rally round the flag. Surely, Rice has no credibility on the matter, considering her conduct in and out of the last administration.

Yet no one alleges that any of this was illegal—it wasn’t. Nothing was leaked to the press, as was the case regarding Flynn’s contacts with Russian diplomats. “What I’ve read bothers me,” said Nunes, who later confessed that the information he saw was provided to him by officials on President Trump’s National Security Council and in the White House Counsel’s Office. “I think it should bother the president himself and his team,” Nunes added. In fact, the information the chairman disclosed allowed the president to claim vindication. Vindication for what? Of course, his March 4th Tweet alleging the Obama administration “had my wires tapped.”

Trump and company aren’t making a legal argument but a moral one about precedent and personality. This convoluted case contrasts with the simplicity of the case Trump opponents are making. It is so deep in the weeds that it requires a fair bit of exposition to explain thoroughly and an audience willing to sit through the back story. Compare this with the claims of Trump’s critics: His NSA was working for a foreign power, even as he advised the campaign. He humiliated the administration in the pursuit of his narrow, commercial interests. The administration is under investigation by the House and Senate, and the campaign is facing an FBI probe.

Donald Trump’s most dedicated defenders have been committed to indefensible terrain. The Trump administration’s once discrete grievance are today muddied beyond recognition. Questions involving Russia are undermining the administration. A majority of Americans favor an independent investigation into Trump’s contacts with Moscow. A McClatchy-Marist poll found a near majority see Trump’s relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin as a bad thing for the U.S. Considering Trump has no discernible relationship with Putin and that his policy toward Russia more closely resembles Barack Obama’s, this is only attributable to questions involving his campaign’s links to Moscow. Amid the investigation into Russia and the debacle involving health care, an IBD/TIPP survey showed Trump’s job approval rating collapsing even among his core voters.

Perhaps the president’s defenders are now so committed to this course that they cannot see it for the obstacle it has become. If they want to have an argument over the propriety of the “unmasking” of Trump officials in intelligence products, they should tailor it so that the public can clearly follow the argument. For the moment, it’s an argument they are losing.