New York Times columnist David Brooks, a frequent critic of President Trump, said the Whitewater scandal that engulfed the Clintons in the 1990s was more substantial for its time than the current investigation into whether the president's campaign colluded with Russia.

In an op-ed Tuesday, Brooks said little evidence has turned up in the months-long investigation into Trump that suggests he or his associates did anything illegal and that the probe is hindering the government from writing legislation in more concerning policy areas.

"In retrospect Whitewater seems overblown," he said. "And yet it has to be confessed that, at least so far, the Whitewater scandal was far more substantive than the Russia-collusion scandal now gripping Washington. There may be a giant revelation still to come. But as the Trump-Russia story has evolved, it is striking how little evidence there is that any underlying crime occurred — that there was any actual collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and the Russians. Everything seems to be leaking out of this administration, but so far the leaks about actual collusion are meager."

The Whitewater controversy centered on then-President Bill Clinton's and first lady Hillary Clinton's venture into a failed real estate deal in Arkansas that led to federal investigations of fraud and embezzlement.

The probe into Russia's election meddling, headed by special counsel Robert Mueller, has reportedly expanded into an investigation of whether Trump obstructed justice, though the White House denies the president is personally under the investigation.

Last week, Trump wrote on Twitter, "They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story."