I'm against impeachment in both cases. I'm not hiding that I changed my mind. If there is one thing that is certain, it is that I am a different person now than I was 20+ years ago.
I get what you are saying. It's like the Dems who now say that they condemn Hillary for the acts that they excused before, but now wish to condemn Trump for doing. I get it. That seems disingenuous.
But, in acknowledgement of that, I went further and said, "they should feel free to use whataboutism to support impeachment" if that is what they want to do. I guess you didn't like that, because you now pretend I strayed off topic, which I didn't. Using Slick to justify impeachment of Trump is still talking about Slick...and, indeed, it is being consistent. I'm telling them to go for it.
But, again, if they want to do it because the GOP did (which is "whataboutism"), they should do it on a basis which cannot be refuted by the same theory of whataboutism. Since Obama got a pass for record campaign finance violations, they can't now say that Trump should be impeached for less. Whataboutism can then be used to defend Trump. They should go for something like Russian collusion. Throw that evidence out there. That might work.