Spygate, for those who do not regularly consume conservative media, is another right-wing conspiracy theory with Donald Trump as the central victim. Its adherents believe Clinton-friendly saboteurs within the American intelligence community illegally spied on the 2016 Trump campaign, and then, when that effort failed, fabricated a "Russian collusion" narrative to cover up their coup attempt.

It is a wild, nonsensical fantasy hawked relentlessly by Fox News and its ilk in order to create a narrative satisfactory to a paranoid, perpetually-aggrieved president. Spygate is what fuels all his calls for investigations of Robert Mueller and Mueller's team of Deep State investigators: Someone wronged him, Trump believes, and they must be brought to justice.

On Wednesday, testifying before a Senate appropriations subcommittee, attorney general William Barr gave Spygate its most authoritative endorsement yet.

"I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal," he told New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, explaining why he initiated a formal review of how the Justice Department and FBI handled their investigations of the Trump campaign.

When she pressed him on whether he believes any espionage actually took place, he stuttered for a moment before offering an answer. "I think spying did occur, yes," he said. "I think spying did occur." Somewhere, Sean Hannity—who assured his audience last night that Barr would soon unleash an "avalanche" of criminal indictments—smiled quietly and allowed himself a well-earned first-pump.

Later, Rhode Island senator Jack Reed, also a Democrat, asked Barr if he had any "specific evidence that there was anything improper" in how the FBI conducted its counterintelligence investigation. "I have no specific evidence I would cite right now, but I do have questions about it," Barr replied. "I have concerns about various aspects of it." It is a pitch-perfect response for a man who wants to satisfy the vengeful president who appointed him to the job, but also knows that, as a serious law enforcement official, he remains somewhat bound by the constraints of reality: No proof exists. But also, he's going to look very strongly at finding some proof.

In a follow-up conversation with Shaheen, Barr equivocated a bit about his top-line conclusion. "The question is whether it was predicated—adequately predicated," he said. "I'm not suggesting it wasn't adequately predicated. But I think I need to explore that." The purpose of his first statement is to allay concerns about Barr using the Department of Justice to launch dubious investigations of Trump's perceived enemies. The second thought, however, is a knowing wink at the president and everyone else convinced of Spygate's veracity—a hint that they are on the right track.