Whataboutism

Comparing searches for the documents of Donald Trump and Hillary,
invoking dicey doctrines such as whataboutism,
induces me to jest, while  being Jack and Jillery
about bread cast on troubled waters of Trumpistic doubtism,

The doctrine surely was endorsed ecclesiastically
by a PC Preacher who was called Qohelet,
but since it’s problematic it’s one I can’t enthusiastically
endorse, although Qohelet never managed to expel it.

In the 8/14/22 WSJ, Alan Dershowitz, a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of “The Price of Principle: Why Integrity Is Worth the Consequences,”  writes,

Attorney General Merrick Garland is a decent man, and he said the right things in his statement regarding the search of Donald Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago: “All Americans are entitled to the evenhanded application of the law, to due process of the law, and to the presumption of innocence.”
It is what he didn’t say that raises disturbing questions about the process. Why didn’t the Justice Department seek to enforce the subpoena it apparently had issued, rather than seek a search warrant? Was this consistent with the “standard practice” Mr. Garland articulated in his statement—“to seek less intrusive alternatives to a search” whenever possible?
Why was the matter handled so differently from the prior investigations of Sandy Berger and Hillary Clinton, who were also suspected of mishandling classified material? Mrs. Clinton herself mocked that question by sporting a baseball cap with the logo “But her emails.”
Her hat is intended to deride the argument made by Trump supporters and some civil libertarians that the investigation of Mr. Trump’s alleged security breaches should be evaluated against the way in which earlier cases were handled. Berger and Mrs. Clinton were suspected of mishandling confidential materials—he by removing them from the National Archives in 2005, she by transmitting them over her private email server while serving as secretary of state. Berger was administratively fined, and Mrs. Clinton was rebuked by James Comey, then director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which might have cost her the 2016 election. But neither was subjected to broad search warrants or criminal prosecution.
Those who reject this comparison accuse those who make it of “whataboutism.” But treating like cases alike is crucial to the equal protection of the laws. The way in which Berger and Mrs. Clinton were treated is highly relevant in determining whether Mr. Trump is being subjected to a double standard of justice.

The facts, especially the degrees of culpability, may be different; and if so, that would provide a good answer to the “what about” question. But if the facts are similar and the treatment is different, Americans are entitled to ask whether this constitutes the even application of the law that Mr. Garland promised. The shoe must fit comfortably on the other foot if justice is to be done and seen to be done. There can’t be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans…..

“Whataboutism” is a new word for an old idea. There’s a 19th-century Yiddish expression: “a for-instance is not an argument.” Yet sometimes it is. If a pattern of nonenforcement can be demonstrated—as with the Logan Act, under which nobody has been prosecuted since 1852—it will be difficult to prove equal justice if it is suddenly and selectively invoked to target a political enemy. If, on the other hand, violation of the Classification or Records Acts were routinely prosecuted and alleged violators subject to a search warrant, then the case for equal application of the law will have been made.

Qoh. 11:1 states:
א  שַׁלַּח לַחְמְךָ, עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם:  כִּי-בְרֹב הַיָּמִים, תִּמְצָאֶנּוּ. 1 Cast thy bread upon the waters, for thou shalt find it after many days.