Well, the one good thing to come out of all of this is at least Hillary isn't our president. Because that would be a terrible thing. I mean, her emails!

Hahh-ha-ha-ha-hah! Wheeeeeeeeee!

Oh, and her ties to Goldman-Sachs. I mean, over the course of several years she made three paid speeches to Goldman-Sachs employees! Why, if she was president GS would practically be running our economy. So glad she didn't get elected, that would have been bad for working people.

Hoo-hoo, ha-ha-ha-hah, oh lord yes ha-ha-hah-hah-haaaaaaa!

"It's not the crime, it's the cover-up" has some pretty uncomfortable connotations to those of us who lived through Watergate. "Watergate" is, after all, short for "a White House political scandal that came to light during the 1972 presidential campaign, growing out of a break-in at the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate apartment-office complex in Washington, D.C., and, after congressional hearings, culminating in the resignation of President Nixon in 1974"
-DictionaryDotCom

Nixon's ordering of the Watergate break-in had implications that may have led down the road to impeachment, or even charges of treason. A focus on the cover-up was, for many of us at the time, an attempt to "soften" the focus, and the potential damage to the presidency and Nixon himself. In our view, that very "softening" did a disservice to Democracy, and emboldened those who might come after Nixon.

So here we are. Trump's ties to Russia are in the process of being revealed to us. Flynn's actions, if perpetrated at the behest of the President, MAY NOT be indictable crimes in and of themselves. Still...a sitting President having his foreign policy decisions undermined by people who do not have the authority to do so...might give a few Constitutional scholars and lawyers pause. ESPECIALLY considering the sanctions in question were in response to electoral crimes that MAY WELL involve all the people presently under investigation.

The REAL crime are perhaps, as it was with the Watergate, yet to be revealed. HOW this one act fits into the whole narrative is unknown.
But the REAL issue here is: What did the President know. NOT when did he STOP knowing it.

could we possibly get Hillary back with Marks v. Stinson? This was in Huffington Post 12/10/16

"Marks v. Stinson, is the first and only known case in which a federal judge reversed an election outcome.

In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review an appellate court’s decision of Marks v. Stinson, a case originally brought before a federal district judge in Pennsylvania in 1993, which was subsequently appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1994. The Third Circuit partially upheld the federal judge’s decision to intervene and invalidate a 1993 state senate election due to fraud. Interestingly, the federal district judge ordered the winner be removed from office and the subsequent vacancy be filled by his opponent."