All of Washington and most Americans now know there was a White House campaign to mislead the public about the Benghazi attack of Sept. 11, 2012, and that there has been a sustained media cover-up since then. The only question is what can be done about it two years later.

There are some lessons from the Nixon impeachment of 40 years ago that are useful in deciding what to do about the current usurper in the White House.

We tend to forget that the break-in at the Watergate occurred in June of 1972 – in the middle of the very successful Nixon re-election campaign –- and that his resignation came 26 months later, in August 1974. In fact, the first impeachment hearing of the House Judiciary Committee did not happen until 23 months after the Watergate incident, on May 9, 1974, 40 years ago today. It took that long for the full truth to come out because of extensive foot-dragging and obfuscation by Nixon and members of the White House staff.

It’s important to remember that technically speaking, Nixon was never actually impeached: He resigned under threat of impeachment after a House committee approved the articles of impeachment, but neither the full House nor the Senate ever voted on the impeachment. Nixon was persuaded to resign by a delegation of congressional Republicans that included Barry Goldwater.

The differences in the case of Obama are striking and, frankly, do not bode well for a successful impeachment effort against Obama. Obama’s friends in the press and in Congress are protecting him far more ferociously than Nixon’s friends did. Whereas in 1972 and 1973, Republicans in Congress cooperated with the investigations into the Watergate events, Obama’s Democratic supporters in Congress are acting to obstruct investigations, and his friends in the mainstream media are co-conspirators in this obstruction.

But there is one big difference between Watergate and Benghazi that does not work in Obama’s favor. No one died at the Watergate. Once the truth comes out, the American people may decide that covering up the truth about the Benghazi attack for political gain is a bigger crime than covering up a middle-of-the-night burglary in a Washington hotel.

So, there are differences but also parallels between Watergate and Benghazi. It took 26 months after the Watergate break-in for a consensus to form in Congress that Nixon ought to resign. The calendar tells us there are 26 months between the Benghazi attack of September 2012 and the November 2014 election.

Of course, the most striking difference between 1974 and 2014 is the mainstream media’s transparent partisanship. They will overwhelmingly protect Obama and defame his detractors, and belittle any congressional investigation dedicated to revealing the truth about Benghazi. Voters may decide to render a judgment on Obama’s truthfulness about Benghazi on Nov. 4, but if they do, it will be in spite the mass media’s bias.

The other reason the media will ardently belittle and undermine any independent investigation of Benghazi is that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was a willing participant in the 2012 cover-up. Obviously, the Clinton team has as much at stake in the Benghazi cover-up as Obama.

In the end, because of the Hillary Clinton connection to the Benghazi events, we have to admit it is very unlikely that congressional Democrats will show the same statesmanship in 2014 demonstrated by Barry Goldwater and other Republican leaders in 1974.

Our nation has changed in those 40 years. Harry Reid is about as far from Barry Goldwater as lying about a burglary is from lying about al-Qaida.

Concerned about the impact of illegal aliens on the United States? Don’t miss Tom Tancredo’s book, “In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America’s Border and Security” – and with your purchase get a free copy of “Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America’s Borders”!

Media wishing to interview Tom Tancredo, please contact [email protected].

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.