Skip to main content

A Special Prosecutor Won't Solve Trump-Russia Scandal

Please. Stop comparing President Donald Trump to former President Richard Nixon.

Russian influence in the 2016 elections is not equivalent to the Watergate scandal. And getting a special prosecutor involved won't result in Trump's demise.

Representatives on the right and left are calling for a special prosecutor to take on the Trump-Russia investigations, but let's just take a minute to think about these impulsive demands.

Since Americans have become so attached to the idea that history can repeat itself, and since they seem to think a separate prosecutor will result in Trump's resignation (or impeachment) like in the case of Nixon, we'll need to take a trip down memory road.

The Watergate scandal of 1974 was an awesome account of a successful prosecution done by an outside party unaffiliated with -- and not controlled by -- the American government. Archibald Cox was called in as special prosecutor and, in just a little over a year, Nixon resigned.

You can't deny that kind of success.

But you can reject the idea that a special prosecutor will do much of anything for this situation. Just because Trump and Nixon are paranoid deplorables doesn't mean their presidencies are identical.

Look at the case of former President Bill Clinton. Before the Monica Lewinsky scandal, there was the Whitewater scandal.

Originally, Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr was invited to probe into allegations regarding Mr. Clinton along with his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in their failed venture, Whitewater Development Corporation, The Washington Post reported. Also included in the probe were their associates, Jim and Susan McDougal. 

What began as an investigation into the financial accounts of the Clintons' and McDougals' resulted in a complete sabotage of Bill's presidency.

All special prosecutors, including Starr and Cox, are given an unlimited budget, and no one keeps them in check regarding their decision-making. So when you're given ample money and unlimited time, you better come up with someone to indict, a National Review column stated.

After 13 months of investigating Whitewater, Starr came up with nothing. But he wasn't going to leave it at that. He successfully managed to expand his investigation and look into the alleged affair between Lewinsky and Mr. Clinton.

One year later, Mr. Clinton was impeached.

Sounds like Starr hit a dead end and had to go off path to appease everyone waiting for a major indictment.

How about the Plame affair?

Comey, who was acting attorney general at the time, appointed Patrick Fitzgerald as an independent counsel to look into who leaked the name and position of CIA officer Valerie Plame to the press following doubt of factual reasons for the war in Iraq.

Even though the source's name became public, Fitzgerald never prosecuted Deputy Security of State Richard Armitage. But he had to indict someone.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, fell victim to the desperate prosecutor, as he was convicted for perjury.

So given these three accounts of major scandals that required special prosecutors, we have a 33.33 percent chance that Trump will actually get what's coming to him (if, in fact, he actually was in cahoots with Russia).

Let's say get a special prosecutor to look into this potential scandal, anyway.

It would be redundant.

According to CNN, many Republicans that oppose this idea recognize that a senate intelligence committee investigation led by Republican Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina and Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia is taking place with the aim of not only uncovering whether Russia influenced the 2016 elections, but also to develop counter measures.

It would also pose a threat to liberals -- who often promote justice yet seem to shout at the top of their lungs when Democrats face investigation.

Former President Barack Obama wasn't innocent of potential scandals.

There's "the IRS’s misuse of its power to harm conservative groups; the Fast and Furious gun-walking affair involving the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; the massive fraud and incompetence at Veterans Affairs hospitals; the spying on James Rosen and other journalists; and, of course, Hillary Clinton’s e-mails," the National Review said.

So is it really worth opening this can of worms in hopes of another Watergate?

Because, according to history, it sounds like a massive waste of time.

Click here for the opposing view on this topic.

Sources: National ReviewThe Washington Post, CNN / Photo credit: Donkey Hotey/ Wikimedia Commons

Popular Video