Well, let's look at the time line.
Starr got his FIRST conviction in May of 1996. He'd been on the job since August of 1994 (See Washington Post - https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/timeline.htm ). That's 21 months.
May 17, 2017 : Mueller appointed as special counsel.
July 27, 2017 : Papadopoulos arrested.
October 5, 2017: Papadopoulos enters guilty plea in federal court ( https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download )
Note, that's LESS than FIVE months from Mueller's appointment until he bagged his first conviction, a felony! The crime Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to was lying about his meeting with one agent he believed to have "substantial connections to Russian government officials" and met with yet another agent he ALSO believed to have connections with the Russian government. ( https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download )
Now let's look at Kenneth Starr's record.
August 5, 1994: Starr is appointed special Whitewater Prosecutor ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/timeline.htm )
May 26, 1996: Starr gets his FIRST conviction, and it has NOTHING to do with Whitewater
( https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/timeline2.htm )
That's over TWENTY ONE MONTHS from the time Starr was appointed until he bagged his first conviction of ANY SORT; and it had NOTHING to do with Whitewater!
___________________________
It took Mueller less than five months to nail a felon for lying about his meetings with agents he believed to be connected to the Russian government (Russian collusion).
It took Starr TWENTY ONE months to nail someone on charges that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the Clintons or with the Whitewater land deal.
________________________
One lead investigator nails his first felony conviction in less than 6 months of being on the job.
Another lead investigator takes TWENTY-ONE months to get his first conviction of ANY SORT.
Riddle: Guess which one the right wingers say should hurry up?
_____________________________________
Here's another scenario:
One investigator, looking into a real estate transaction, busts someone for a cable television deal.
Another investigator looking into collusion with a foreign adversary busts a suspect (and gets a felony conviction) for lying to the feds about his collusion with someone the suspect believes to be an operative representing that foreign government.
Riddle: Guess which one the right wingers accuse of going "outside his scope"?
