They aren't clearly analogous though. The charge against Trump is that he's willing to take advantage of corruptible people / systems. The charge against Hillary is that she, herself, is corrupt. This is the same justification as Trump's defense for minimizing his tax exposure, that as a savvy businessman, he takes every advantage he can. Clever spin for Trump would be something like "the case had no merits but Crooked AG Bondi used her position to *extort* me, the job-creating businessman, just like Crooked Hillary and all politicians abuse their positions. I played the other side of the game as a businessman and I hated it and I'm going to end it as President!" Certainly I don't think that's a persuasive angle, but a lot of Trump supporters jump at opportunities to see Trump in opposition to corrupt politicians.
Why give them that opportunity? To see Trump as "cutting a deal"? I think it's more effective to attack Trump on this directly, rather than as some double standard or hypocrisy. He's a slimy coward who tried to worm his way out of defending himself in court. Period.
