> Not to "both sides" this too much

So not "both siding" too little or too much, but both siding a just right amount?

No “both siding” is the right amount.

The “sides” we ought to be considering are corrupt politicians and those of us who object to corrupt politicians.

Framing this as if there are two equivalent and corrupt sides effectively normalizes and excuses these corrupt pardons.

hence the "...but".

I don't really think it's about "both sides", I think it's about contextualizing the action. Because the Trump administration was so insane in so many ways, we tend to forget (or maybe misremember) that there is a very real and persistent form of corruption in our politics that far predates Trump. The end of the Trump regime does not mean the end of political corruption, not by a long shot, and we would do well to remember that. I think one of my biggest fears with Biden is that because he isn't Trump, everyone will take a deep sigh of relief, and then ignore the more mundane "political corruption as usual" aspects of his presidency.

They framed a relevant point that furthers the discussion in a way that was less ambiguous and less likely to do harm.

For me personally, it's frustrating to see comments about things like whataboutism when they're obviously just to deflect and distract.

At the very least, with caveats like saying "I don't support this, but..." there's some level of acknowledgement of, "yes, this might be veering into sketchy waters".