That's obvious. I only said that the situations are not equivalent. When the media really started going after the Clintons, Bill was already President of the United States. That made them big fish mega targets. Their every potential wart then got put under the microscope because they were the undisputed leaders of the opposition to the Republican Right, and they physically stood in their way. Since then Hilary has always been viewed as the "Crown Princess" who likely would someday ascend to leadership of the Democratic Party. She remained a high visibility target, on numerous occasions she was named the most admired woman in the world, she was not a previously obscure political figure. Hillary stayed in the spotlight cast both good and bad for decades. So yeah, had she been investigated for bank fraud at any point since she became First Lady, the media would have made a lot out of it. Though I do think they got added juice out of her having theoretically endangered National Security while in the office of Secretary of State. That created the opening for Congressional Republicans to stage endless high profile hearings about her activity, and that really fed the frenzy.
But what fed the frenzy the most was the fact that most people in this nation, starting in about 2010, viewed Hillary as the very likely next President of the United States. And for much of the FBI investigation of her, she literally was a declared candidate for President and campaigning actively for the office.
Hillary faces misogyny, unlike male politicians. She bears many extra unfair burdens Still for the reasons I mentioned above the two situations, hers and Bernie's, are not equivalent. If Bernie stays out in front of a major and growing national movement, and if he positions himself to run again in 2020 as the strong favorite to win the Democratic nomination, and we are talking about this again in early 2019 with the mid terms behind us and all eyes now glued instead on the 2020 race - then the circumstances could be called near equivalent