I think your question is loaded and would establish a false premise. Collusion and interference in a US election is a crime, but giving softball questions to a presidential candidate, and then editing the recording for brevity is not a crime.
Perhaps pathological narcissism serves as a means of constructing a stable moral compass, one where the individual becomes their own ultimate authority.
You keep restating what we agree with, as if we can somehow agree more than 100%. But you also keep ignoring that democrats and the left wanted to jail folks on the right for "election interference" and they also had no real case, but you just don't want to say that. "It's a loaded question". No it's not. It may be inconvenient to you, or it may force you to think about things you don't like, but it's not loaded. You either consider that both sides were full of shit, or that both sides have a case, because they're identical.
Context matters. If one side incites an insurrection and the other investigates potential interference, those aren't mirror images of each. The left was bound by convention, the idea that any crime that stands out must be hammered down. But that assumes institutions function neutrally, rather than being shaped by political pressures. The right exploits this by flooding the system with so much wrongdoing that enforcing norms starts to look partisan.
Did I not already make it clear that I believe there was election interference? Which is why I believe it's false equivalence.
Tsingy is reliable in making the claim that the left has a bad case of hyperbole despite the right being lead by Trump. If George Soros was running DOGE, they would lose their never loving minds.
First, the left and right have a bad case of hyperbole. The difference is that I call out both, while you (and others) call out the right only. Second, George Soros was already running half of the government before DOGE was there. He'd never be for anything that was for cutting government.