Let’s try it this way. Based on your comment, I understand your argument structure to be like this (correct me if I’m wrong):
Election is coming up > democrats are running in the election > as part of the election strategy democrats are pushing a “talking point” about trump campaign dangling pardons and legal defense funding for his insurrection conspirators > trump had the chance to pardon them already but chose not to, so therefore he’s lying to them > democratic party promises they broke re: abortion and environment when they had power are the same type of lie and therefore relevant to the discussion about trump campaign dangling pardons and legal defense funding for his insurrection conspirators in the current campaign…because they’re both lies?
Surely you can see how you’ve had to construct an entirely different argument structure around the actual subject of discussion (trump campaign dangling pardons and legal defense funding for his insurrection conspirators) to try and build relevance? But even then it doesnt actually work logically.
Your original response was essentially “but what about Obummer?!” That’s whataboutism. It’s a logical fallacy.