"It's Only Sex!" Isn't the Looming Trump Indictment Reminiscent of Bill Clinton's Monicagate Scandal?

As the consensus — even among Trump critics — seems to be that the looming indictment against Donald Trump is "nonsense" and a “blatantly partisan exercise of raw power”, I am reminded that anytime I see any kind of debate online about Donald Trump's time in office, there will always be some leftist spewing out that the proof that POTUS45 is a conman/a criminal/a traitor/a disaster is that he is the only president to be impeached twice. (Or is it three times? I can't remember anymore.)

Isn't this proof, rather, that, in its desire to create a one-party state, the Democratic Party is turning the country into a banana republic?

As it happens, the Democrat Party's incessant attempts to demonize and bring down Donald Trump, along with the entire GOP, for over half a decade remind me of the Ministry of Truth's Two Minutes' Hate program against Emmanuel Goldstein, Big Brother's "enemy of the people" in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.

It continues to amaze me that mainstream media outlets like CNN can "report" (sic) on "Hush money, Mar-a-Lago docs, 2020 election aftermath: Notable investigations, lawsuits and controversies continue to surround the former president" — without giving notice to what Joe Biden has been involved in, both before and after becoming president (sniff sniff, anyone?).

In that perspective, Wikipedia reveals that in the George Orwell novel, the economy department, aka the Ministry of Plenty, is in fact "responsible for maintaining a state of perpetual poverty, scarcity and financial shortages" (thanks to Ed Driscoll for the Instalink).

One thing that surprises me about the indictment in which Stormy Daniels is the central element is that so far nobody, either on the right or on the left, seems to have made what seems to me to be the correct comparison: it is reminiscent of the Bill Clinton scandal known as Monicagate and the impeachment trial of 1998-1999.

Back then, the Clinton defenders then held (hardly wrongly) that the affair with Monica Lewinsky (or with anybody else) should remain private and not be used in politics — "It's only sex!" (with which I agreed, by the way — although I also now recognize that my viewpoint back then was almost entirely formed by the left-leaning mainstream media).

Doesn't this prove that the Democrats, and their MSM allies, will say whatever, depending on who is in office? Their guy or the other guy?

1998: Sex is a private matter and it should be nobody's business who the President (Bill Clinton) fools around with.

2023: The President or former President (Donald Trump), who we were delighted to break a story about making a comment about grabbing women by the pussy, had the audacity to cheat on his wife, and he needs to be punished.

2016: In the meantime, we had 2016: not only were there not a single scandal, not one (sic), during the president's (during Barack Obama's) tenure, but the President was an upright family man.

2020: The President or future President {Joe Biden) touches children and holds them close to him while sniffing their hair, and this is not anything that we think is worthy to write a news story about.

They jump from one argument to the other, to the very opposite, 180º, depending on what party the commander-in-chief belongs to.

Breitbart's Kristina Wong:

Alan Dershowitz, who is also not a fan of Trump’s but has slammed politicized investigations and impeachments of the former president, wrote recently in the New York Sun:

All decent people, whether politically opposed to Mr. Trump (as I am) or supportive of his candidacy, should be concerned about this weaponizing of the prosecutor’s office for the political purpose of preventing a potential candidate from running for office.

Even some of the president’s potential 2024 rivals are calling the potential indictment political persecution.

Megyn Kelly's Show also had an interview with Alan Dershowitz, the author of the book, Get Trump, the publication of which could hardly be more appropriate (0:56-23:00, thanks to Paul Reen). 

We don't want to — ever — weaponize our criminal justice system! It's the glory — it's the glory! — of our Constitution, that we have a Fifth Amendment, and a Fourth Amendment, and a First Amendment.  And all these amendments … one after the other … that the people on the other side are so anxious to get Trump, they're willing to sacrifice the entire Constitution [ca. 15:15]

Update: on Instapundit, Philip Nolan writes:

True, but the scandal this most resembles -- without the actual love-child -- is the [John] Edwards affair. 

Surprisingly, Edwards was prosecuted, but even with an actual out-of-wedlock birth and evidence of payments, the jury wouldn't convict.

Combined with Jim Comey's "no reasonable prosecutor" standard (oh, wait, he wasn't a prosecutor then?), seems like a reasonable course of action is to just "move on." Yet one of Soros's minions won't -- why is that?

Update 2: If the Trump Arrest Means Anything, It Is the Fact That It Confirms the Millionaire's Charges Against the Deep State 

Back in the Clinton days, a quarter century ago, during Monicagate, the response was always "It's only sex!" 

We can all go back and forth about various similarities or differences between the two cases (which I wrote about in more detail two weeks ago), it all comes down to this: Leftists turned to Trump's alleged sexcapades, real or imagined (before their target was even in the White House), only when, and only because, they exhausted everything else — every single charge over six-seven years failing miserably.