This story is specifically about a man that members of the U.S. government were lobbying to come and testify at the ICC ("...after months of behind-the-scenes lobbying by U.S. lawmakers, human rights activists and international lawyers"). The ICC that the U.S. is not only not a member of, but specifically has a law against anyone assisting the ICC in cases against members of the American government[1]. I don't see why the motivations of the groups involved shouldn't be discussed.

Likewise, if someone suspects someone of bias, I don't think it's unimportant to ask them if they hold consistent positions. If a Trump supporter is talking about how Biden should be impeached for something Trump did, I don't think it's "whatboutism" to ask if they would hold the same standard to Trump (or vice versa). There's a big difference between being concerned about something because of an underlying moral principal, and being concerned about something because of a specific bias against one of the groups involved. This used to be considered an important distinction, but now people act as if we shouldn't even talk about it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...