Never rassle with a hog. He enjoys it, and you get all muddy. Kind of like teachin' one to sing too.
You'll have to qualify that argument: legal troubles: civil or criminal? In what time period? Public or Private individuals? Once you start narrowing his focus down, he'll reveal the areas he doesn't want included in his position... and then you will have a clear target.
Who knows what the Democrats are hoping for? Seriously, the party in power tends to be where the "scandals" are because, A) they are the focus of attention and B) power attracts $$$ (most likely no Dems will be indicted in the "Abramoff net", not because of their virture, but because people who want something done will go the folks in power, not the minority party).
That said, I think an enormous opportunity was squandered by Ken Starr et al, when the focus of the "Clinton scandals" came down to a tawdry, little affair. Vince Foster, Mena airfields, Ron Brown assassination, filegate, etc. all fell by the wayside because of a political calculation to bring WJC down with a sex scandal.
The result was the perception that the judiciary system was being manipulated to "create" a crime - perjury trap whatever, and in retrospect, maybe it was - in order NOT to pursue the bigger crimes of the Clinton admin.
Why? To save the public the trauma? Well, the result is that we have an empowered Hillary, with (as incredible as it may seem) a shot at the WH for herself.
I can't believe it matters........