(02-28-2018 10:48 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: You are arguing that FBI/DOJ are fair and trustworthy, against those who are arguing political bias and motives. Therefore, if they provide evidence to support their assertion that a double standard exists, they are not engaging in whataboutery.
As an initial matter, I don't think he has really provided "evidence" of a double standard. He hasn't provided any legal analysis or linked to any legal analysis. He has just spouted his own opinion (which is fine, but isn't evidence). I don't believe OO has a law degree, and 69/70/75 and tanqtonic, both of whom have law degrees, have yet to jump on board with OO's opinion on this specific issue, even though they seem to agree with his general sentiment regarding the special counsel's investigation.
Second, I argued that there is sufficient public evidence to justify the special counsel's investigation. OO responded that he thinks it is a witch hunt because they are not also investigating the Clinton campaign, which is whataboutery. He also argued that the crimes that have been charged are minor infractions that don't really matter (my summary of his argument, not trying to put words in his mouth), which is not whataboutery.
I have again responded that there is sufficient public information to justify the ongoing investigation (including providing some light legal analysis), but also that I have a tendency to trust the law enforcement officials. OO says that he doesn't, pointing to the apparent lack of investigation into the Clinton campaign as evidence of bias. In this context, I guess you could say that his responses are not whataboutery, but in my mind, the trustworthiness of the federal law enforcement officers is secondary to the original discussion. Moreover, his bias argument doesn't attack the substance of the investigation, it just attempts to distract from it, which I would categorize as whataboutery.
No reason to get bogged down in the semantics of whether his opinion amounts to whataboutism / whataboutery. If there is evidence that the Clinton campaign had "links and/or coordination" with the Russian government, then I hope that gets investigated as well, and I will trust the law enforcement professionals' determination as well.
Incidentally, we have no idea whether the Clinton campaign is being investigated. These folks are notoriously close-mouthed about ongoing investigations. OO presumes no such investigation has taken place or is taking place. But he doesn't know that for certain.