I read a book years ago, I forget the author and title, anyway the author was not a Nixon fan by any stretch of the imagination, however he was interested in the truth. He pointed out how Nixon was not any worse than some of his predecessors, he just got caught. JFK and LBJ did a lot of the same things, like using the IRS to go after enemies and things like that.
The central legal issue of Watergate was "obstruction of justice."
The primitives, with their really weird grasp of history and reality, might think Watergate was a whole lot of other things, but the stark fact remains that it was "obstruction of justice," which is a high crime and an impeachable offense.
Since Nixon, both William Clinton and Barack Milhous have, obviously, obstructed justice, the first in lying to a grand jury, the current instance trying to cover up an illegal act via the attorney general.
The law is
meant to be impartially applied. However, this being an imperfect world, factors such as "who did it" and "who's running things at the time" (Nixon had a 60+% Democrat Congress and of course a left-wing Supreme Court) and "popular sentiment" about whether or not something's "important" at the time to the general public, influence whether or not the law is applied.
And so the law isn't applied impartially.
In a perfect world, both Clinton and Barack Milhous would've met the same fate as Nixon.