Sorry Carl Bernstein, as one who lived through the drama and dangers of Watergate, I can only wish that Sam Irvin were with us now.

The key difference between Watergate and the Clinton crimes is that Nixon had been re-elected after the Congressional investigation began but before any hard evidence had been disclosed (the existence of the tapes was not yet known). (Incidentally members of the Watergate committees -- including Hillary Clinton herself -- were not accused of violating the Hatch Act.)

Once Congress knew they had the smoking gun, members of Nixon’s own party went in a delegation to the White House to tell Nixon that he had to resign in order to avoid a constitutional crisis, since the military and the DOJ reported to a president who was about to be found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors for having broken into the offices of the DNC. Members of his own party knew that if the conviction occurred that a constitutional crisis would be inevitable. Many believe that a deal was worked out to install Gerald Ford as VP, with the understanding that he would pardon Nixon for all past and future offenses, in exchange for Nixon agreeing to resign and peacefully hand over the reins of government.

The likelihood that Hillary Clinton is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors is more apparent each day. The emails’ server identification marks prove their source (her own server) and that their content has not been tampered with. The smoking gun already exists despite the unfortunate previous claim by Comey that there were no grounds for prosecution. Many FBI agents have already resigned in protest of his ridiculous claim, after asserting clear legal grounds for a case Negligence, that no prosecutor would take this case. (Incidentally the penalty under that statute includes ineligibility for holding any Federal office.)
In 2016 we have the opposite of Watergate. The Democratic Party has chosen and continues to support Hillary Clinton for president when a clear basis for criminal prosecution exists. If she is elected, on what grounds would we secure a peaceful resignation once she controls the DOJ and the military?

Obama has already instructed the DOJ not to charge Hillary. The DOJ prohibited the FBI from issuing subpoenas, from obtaining warrants and from empaneling a grand jury in the review of Clinton’s emails – in other words they blocked the FBI from investigating Hillary Clinton’s criminal actions.

If Obama pardons her on the way in to take the reins of the greatest military power in the world, what hope is there for our democracy? If Obama doesn’t pardon her prospectively, or if he does,, we have the same constitutional crisis that would have occurred had not the leaders of the Republican Party taken the reins and gone to the White House to tell the President they would not support him.

Nothing in the rapacious quest for power by both Clintons through the Clinton Foundation could lead us to believe that Hillary Clinton would do anything except hold onto illegitimate power, even at pains of eroding the basis for our democracy.
In light of all of this the Clinton campaign’s insistence that somehow democracy is being undermined (as the FBI attempts to investigate her) does not suggest that she would subject herself to the rule of law. The bogus claim that what this really demonstrates is that Russia is trying to interfere with the election is totally irrelevant in evaluating the evidence of crimes in her emails.

There is no basis for believing that the content of the emails has been in any way tampered with or changed.
If one were to believe these foolish claims that Russia hacked Hillary’s server to interfere with our elections, the content of the emails stands on its own regardless of that possibility. Of course now the Clintons claim that the FBI (in addition to Russia) is undermining our democracy by investigating the content of those emails now found on a source completely independent of foreign interference. And 83% of Democrats say this is a mere distraction.

We have no reason to believe that the Democratic Party would act to defend democracy. They have conspired to undermine the election by sabotaging Bernie Sanders campaign, by planting questions in debates and placing an operative on CNN as if she were an independent commentator, by targeting likely Sanders voters and removing them from the voters roles in many states, by preventing the votes from being counted in the California primary (to this day more than 1 million votes remain uncounted) and now by using the Department of Justice to stifle further investigation of the Clinton foundation and the crimes of the Clinton campaign.