Everything you say here is fine. But it's not really about what I was saying. I'm not even debating whether or not people should have a problem with his crimes. I'm debating on what the meaning is behind going after him for smaller crimes when they've never gone after a president before. I'll use an extreme example to illustrate what I'm saying. Imagine if three presidents in a row committed first degree murder and weren’t charged because they were presidents. Then the next president came along and they changed the penalty for jaywalking to a felony and charged him for jaywalking from 10 years ago. Would you wonder why they let past presidents off for murder just to throw the book at the next one for jaywalking?
The point is, right or wrong, presidents have gotten away with anything and everything for the history of the country. That shouldn't be the case but it is. Once they finally decided to hold a president responsible, it needed to be a "holy shit there's no way they could let that one go!" situation. Otherwise, it looks like they are just going after a political opponent.