[nobody9999]

>There's no way that could be Watergate-squared. The defining characteristic of Watergate was the audio tapes, so this has to be a reference to the "Bring some Cokes in, please" recording.

I have to disagree. The defining characteristic of Watergate was the illegal (break-ins to steal political opponents' strategies and psychiatrists files) activities by a political organization (CREEP[0]) that were then covered up by those at the highest levels of the executive branch.

The issue wasn't that there were recordings of such a cover up, it was the cover up that was the problem. Unless, of course, you'd like to argue that something isn't illegal/immoral if you don't get caught.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_the_Re-Election_...

[pohl]

Even under that different defining characteristic, the analogue would be the same modern event: the recording that gives lie to the cover-up narrative that he had used his psychic declassification superpowers.

[nobody9999]

>Even under that different defining characteristic, the analogue would be the same modern event: the recording that gives lie to the cover-up narrative that he had used his psychic declassification superpowers.

My apologies. I wasn't clear that I was responding to this:

   The defining characteristic of Watergate was the audio tapes, so this has to 
   be a reference to the "Bring some Cokes in, please" recording.

And not at all responding to this:

   There's no way that could be Watergate-squared. 

I don't claim that the former president's legal issues are "Watergate-squared."

While there are some similarities between Watergate and the current situation, specifically a lack of ethics, enormous hubris and that it involves a (former) US President among other things, the cases are quite different and should be treated as such.