Afraid of Nixon? Wait for Jaworski.

Nixonian.

It’s a popular adjective these days.

Many of the talking heads I’m listening to and many of the schooled and amateur commenters are missing the point, however, when they spew the Nixonian epithet in the wake of President Donald Trump firing FBI Director James Comey over what I’m not exactly sure:

The redress to Nixonianism is Jaworskianism.

Remember your history: Richard Nixon wanted Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox fired for daring to subpoena recordings of Nixon’s conversations with his staff. Attorney General Elliot Richardson refused to fire Cox and resigned – followed by Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus refusal and resignation, the new Attorney General, Robert Bork (who, later would see his own last name used to coin a popular political phrase) fired Cox. Classic Saturday Night Massacre.

Enter Leon Jaworski.

Jaworski came in as the second special prosecutor in the growing Watergate scandal, and contrary to fears (even those expressed by Bork) Jaworski didn’t toe any line except that of justice.

Jaworski immediately subpoenaed the same tapes Cox wanted to listen to, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, saying the “generalized assertion of [executive] privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.”

Nixon, I suppose, could have fired Jaworski, and kept on firing attorneys general until he found on who would not subpoena the tapes, but not even Nixon is that Nixonian.

What I’m driving at is this: The truth will out, no matter what presidents may or may not do. We’ve seen sufficient checks and balances in our government since January 20, and we will continue to see them. I suppose I’m one of the naïve few who still believes government functions as the Founders intended, even if that functionality is as creaky and slow as it is. In hindsight, it’s also important to remember that the Nixonian epithet didn’t develop overnight, nor did the white hats triumph over the black hats immediately. It took time.  Have faith that government will work, albeit not at the pace you might expect.

As for that investigation, I have my doubts (amateurish as they may be) that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and/or Russian hackers (I don’t dispute the hacking and disinformation campaign took place). The Democrats were going to be split between Clinton and Sanders with or without Russian hacking or disinformation, and the rise of Trump can only be explained by the rise of Trump. Until any investigation can prove collusion that led to victory (despite, remember, Clinton winning the popular vote) I have to question whether the Russian Connection is merely the Democrats’ Benghazi.