1. Two of the, say, five most important Democrats involved in this dustup are Chuck Schumer and Jerry Nadler, both New York City politicians who have a long history of taking Trump’s donations, saying nice things about him, and backslapping at events with him. I think the GOP is missing an opportunity if they don’t use that history against the Dems.
2. The Clinton similarities raise issues far larger than what I mentioned. Bill Clinton is AT LEAST a serial sexual abuser of women, and LIKELY a rapist. This was all known when he first ran for president in 1992. Despite his prior and in-office history, he was then lionized as a party leader for another decade (at least). The Dems have not just the challenge to live down their immoral legacy of support for such a man, but owe an apology to the thousands of women who were abused because #metoo “wokeness” was postponed for at least two decades because of their defense of that man.
3. The Dems have not yet been held accountable for the fact that both the campaigns were engaged in the same sort of collusion with Russians. Specifically, (A) Trump’s campaign, in an on-and-off-again fashion, tried to use Russians for opposition research, not really caring about how the information was obtained. That’s not illegal but reprehensible, and they showed themselves to be political neophytes by the Keystone Cop-ish way they went about it; HOWEVER, (B) Clinton’s campaign, in a much more politically professional and organized way, DID obtain opposition research from Russia by engaging a firm (FusionGPS) as a proxy, who employed an ex-British intel agent (Steele) to gather “intelligence”, not really caring if it were verified or not, then used it to poison the Trump well by feeding it to US politicians and the FBI. That is ALSO not illegal, but even MORE reprehensible, since the Trump campaign interactions stopped after the inauguration, but the residue from the Clinton activities continues on.
4. If the Dems choose to pursue impeachment, they need to hope-beyond-hope that the Sara Carter/Kim Stassel/Sharyl Attkisson research narrative is either untrue or they can keep it buried using their media allies. Otherwise, this could get ugly very quickly.

To the latter two points, the NYT finally got around to admitting that the dossier has some problems. Better late than never, I suppose.

NYT Finally Acknowledges That Steele Dossier Might Not Be That Factual