Scenario:political party A is in power currently and previously political party B was in power. Political Party B while in power few years back did something questionable.(misuse of power).
I, including a lot of other people who share the same ideas criticized this vociferously.
Now Political party A is doing this same questionable thing while in power currently.
As usual Me and the same people who share the same ideas are criticizing this questionable thing.
The retort we get from Party A loyalist is why didn't you criticize Party B when they did this.
This retort is dishonest according to me because it automatically puts burden of proof on me to do the below two things before even trying to discuss the current issue.
Open my Criticism of Political Party A by starting to first criticize party B.
Provide proof that they I and people like me have in fact criticized Party B
This in turn takes the focus on the current issue and dilutes it with other partisanship.
Party B did need to have a separate focus and needs to be dealt with but conflating those two will not solve either problem but divide us more.
My Question is there a name for this fallacy of argument (the retort by party loyalist)?