I'm not sure if you're intentionally being selective here, but I'll assume good intent.

GP goes on to say:

> There's clearly an element of selective prosecution here, regardless of whether the charge is valid. To make a martyr of Trump over small time crimes is not going to be good for the country in the end.

Their point is quite specifically _not_ whataboutism. They use another example to point to what they believe to be selective prosecution, not to ask "why not proscute the others who did this?".

> It’s just Whataboutism. What the DNC did or did not do is entirely irrelevant to the case, because the DNC is not who was standing before the grand jury.

No it is not. The DNC was not trying to hide something about their private personal life which would not have had a material affect on the election. She was not paid until the month before the election. There was so much crap that had been spewed about Trump by then, this would have been a drop in the sea. The DNC was trying to actively trying harm an opposing candidate which I would say is far worse.