Since TheDaemon hasn't brought up an example of anybody soliciting or receiving anything of value from a foreign national in connection with an election, and that is the basis of Trump's current problems, bringing up the New York AG, who has not been accused by anybody of dealing with foreign nationals, is pretty straightforward whataboutism.
I think it was absolutely clear both when the NY AG was initially brought up as a response to your seeming claim that politically motivated investigation announcements are inherently interference in an election even if they could have other politically motivate goals (it is absolutely clear the NY AG's investigations are politically motivated, they expressly linked their campaigns to them and it's clear they are investigating people not crimes) and then when you clarified that any AG who announced investigations without a basis should be removed from office (which again the NY AG clearly did), why you were being referred to the NY AG as relevant. You don't have any consistency on this concept, and in fact you excuse the actual politically motivated investigations, even when they are directly linked to politics, and hold the investigation of what looks like crimes as the "politically motivate" investigations based on an indirect theory of benefit. And why? Seems to just be a political team decision.
Trying to claim that this was somehow about the NY AG involving itself with foreign actors is a massive retcon and strawman. There's no logically consistent position you can hold if you think Trump and the DOJ investigating interference in the 2016 election is somehow wrong and an "interference" in the 2020 election, but somehow believe it's okay for an activist NY AG to announce that they will essentially be investigating anyone with any connection to Trump without a basis - largely for the direct purpose of interfering with the 2020 election and/or the unConstitutional purpose of interfering with the ability of the Federal executive to effectuate his official requirements.
This isn't "whataboutism" at all, it's about endorsement of unConstitutional activities on the one hand, and pretending that Constitutional duties on the other are illegal, for no apparent reason other than partisanship.
Especially since, as LR and I have now argued, the New York AG actually does have plenty of evidence to drive forward state level charges.
Did they? I think you're both stretching. If you investigate thousands of people with the full power of the state and look to trip them up on any basis conceivable you can find hundreds of "crimes" and pressure people to implicate others. It worked very well for McCarthy and the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, so why woudn't it work for the NY AG. Still a fundamental violation of how due process and equal protection under the laws is supposed to work.
If you're going to insert yourself at the end of a debate, you should really do so without immediately throwing around insults, and being at least slightly relevant to be topic.
That's unnecessarily nasty. And frankly not true. You are on the wrong side of this debate on facts, and on principle, it's not anyone else's fault.
You are missing fundamental connectors to make this about 2020. Best I can tell you've never adequately explained how investigating 2016 interference is not a legitimate thing, how investigating what everyone on earth knows was an illegitimate board position would be an illegitimate thing, or what basis you have that asking the Ukraine to conduct transparent investigations into those would be immoral, illegal or problematic.
You haven't answered the obvious corollary to your position that investigation of Biden is illegal, that Joe Biden by your construct has to be immune to any investigation by the DOJ related to past conduct. What basis do you have for this absolute immunity that far exceeds even Presidential immunity. And if that's really your position, why did you endorse the equivalent and apparent illegal investigations into Trump's campaign?
You have not remotely addressed the Obama DOJ's active cooperatoin with the Ukrainians during the 2016 election to investigate Manafort, or any of the events of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election that were documented. All of which a consistent principal would require that be considered crimes and effectively validate the very investigations you seem to think are improper.
You haven't even explained why the "opinions" of the best witnesses the Democrats could put together are relevant, when they didn't actually have any official or apparently even an official direction and relied on presumptions. Or why you think they are evidence of a Trump directed policy. Even if you could get over all the humps above, which you actually can't, it's still a hard sell. Effectively, we are at the point where "accusation = guilty" in the mind of those with TDS.