OP's comment was pointing out the similarities between issue #1 and issue #2. There's no dismissal.
They both share in common that rather than continuing to talk about just one thing, you are now talking about (at least) two.
But whataboutism is a diversion tactic that tries to shift the attention from behavior/event A to behavior/event B; pointing out the hypocrisy notes the similarities between behaviors/events A and B and contrasts the response.
Both can be deployed in similar situations, but the motivations for choosing one over the other are substantially different.
> The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one's own viewpoints or behaviors.
Both Clintons private email server, Pete signal chats and Trump documents stash in Mar-a-lago are equally bad. Lack of consequences signal erosion of “Law and order” in the US. It seems that US is now not different from third rate countries where last minute exceptions, insider trading, open bribery, secret police(ICE) and targeted prosecution is a new norm.
However, Hegseth’s transgression was the worst in terms of severity by orders of magnitude. Details of an in-progress military operation and all.
Novel idea: what if we focus on the exact issue that was originally brought up?
'Someone else did it, or something like it, sometime, somewhere.' I'm past caring about that -- because it's used too frequently to distract from the current issue.
A. Hegseth broke the law and shared classified information on a system that wasn't approved for it.
B. Or, he unilaterally declassified operational details without informing anyone or going through a normal process.
It can only be one of the two above options, because the facts aren't in question.
Edit: But looks like National Security Advisor Mike Waltz will be taking the fall for this: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/crkx3ed5dn2t
Is it? I'd think that somebody who took Hillary's hidden 3rd party communications seriously would take these seriously too.
The bizarre behavior is insisting that what Clinton did was trivial, but that this is a disaster.
Also this emphasis on security is backseat driving from a bunch of people who want to attack Iran. The real problem with them using third-party communications is that they avoid FOIA.
It's a simple ask.