“Worse than Watergate”: the modern comparisons

From the right: in 2016 the FBI investigated a presidential campaign, using surveillance warrants that the Justice Department’s own Inspector General found had at least 17 significant errors or omissions. The Durham report said the inquiry was opened on “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence”. Nixon was driven out for using government agencies against opponents; on this view, the agencies did it to Trump, and nobody resigned. [1][2]

From the left: Trump was impeached twice, once for pressing Ukraine to investigate a rival and once for incitement after January 6, and acquitted both times. Nixon resigned when his own party turned against him; on this view, the modern conduct was worse and the accountability weaker. [3]

And the law has moved. In Trump v. United States, the Court held that a president has at least presumptive immunity for official acts. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent pointed to Watergate and the Nixon pardon, both of which assumed Nixon faced criminal liability. On this view, the main legal lesson of Watergate has been weakened. [4]

On the FBI: the IG found the 17 errors and omissions but “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence” that political bias influenced the decision to open the investigation, or “intentional misconduct” by the case agents. Durham found “a lack of analytical rigor, apparent confirmation bias” and over-reliance on sources linked to political opponents, and said investigators could not corroborate the Steele reporting. Both reports found serious failures. Neither found a plan by the President’s opponents of the kind the Watergate tapes record. [1][2]

On the impeachments: the House impeached Trump in December 2019 and January 2021, and the Senate acquitted both times. Nixon is not on the House’s list of impeached officials, because he resigned before the vote. [3][5]

On immunity: the majority in Trump v. United States held that presidents have absolute immunity for acts within their core constitutional powers, at least presumptive immunity for other official acts, and none for unofficial acts. The Watergate passage quoted in many headlines is from Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, not the ruling. [4]

The difference with Watergate is the kind of evidence. Watergate has the President’s own recorded voice approving obstruction. [6] Whether any later scandal is “worse” depends on how you weigh abuse of agencies, foreign pressure, an attack on Congress and accountability. Those are judgments, not facts. This site does not score them.