> The claims in 2016 was that it was for all intents and purposes stolen by a foreign adversary’s interference
There were some who made an argument like that (and given how close the states necessary to swing the election were, its not hard to see how if interference had any effect at all, it could easily have been a decisive one); and, sure, also the same kind of complaints occurred with regard to the Republican FBI director’s last-minute misconduct with regard to the handling of the Clinton email investigation, but for both of those it was in, at most, a moral sense of “stolen” with regard to the election; the legal allegations were never about an invalid election.
Even though the fact of foreign interference and the allegations of collusion (and, the much less complex facts of Comey’s behavior) were present well before the election, there was no issue raised in the electoral vote count meeting the minimum member-from-each-house requirement for challenging any states electoral votes. There were no lawsuits against states votes predicated on either of these objections. There was no rally with either the sitting Democratic President or the defeated Democratic candidate and other Democratic elites riling up a mob that proceeded to attack the Capitol to use violence to alter the outcome of the count based on the objections. There was no even remote equivalence, and the both-sides-ism here is not something anyone with even casual familiarity with the facts could plausibly argue in good faith.
All you're pointing out here is the obvious fact that when you are in a run-up to a civil war, the way it goes is one of continuing escalation and distrust, each side building off of the other's previous norm breaking. We had election distrust then, we have a more potent version now. We had violent riots this summer, we have a more potent one now that that norm is now broken. Both of the recent events have opened the door for the next logical escalation: creation of new domestic terrorism laws which will find a way to turn people who question the election or are associated in opinion of the most recent rioters as terrorists. And on the other side, bombs and other violent acts to destroy things like the assets of tech companies who are suppressing speech, and more violent, less "selfie-oriented" insurrectionist action into government seats of power. And in case you think I'm saying one side "started it", I'm not. I'm talking about the two prior events on this track, one of many tracks leading us down this road. Nobody can remember when it started, but it was obvious to me years ago that the hatred and psychological manipulation we are under was going to lead here. And we're not at the end, we're at the midpoint at best.
Hypocrisy is ignored, since to recognize it would risk having to admit profound judgement errors. And it would risk losing power, since the other side would capitalize on this as weakness and an admission that they were right all along. Better to dig in, especially if you can't imagine it will ever get to the point where people are breaking into your house and trying to kill you because of a sign that was on your lawn a few months ago according to Google Maps.
Those focused on accusing people (like me) of being biased by "both-sidsing" when we point out the now obvious pattern of escalation, the transparent memory holing or double standards and hypocrisy revealed by those trying to force the debate into minor semantic quibbles (like you are) to score a point about "who was more wrong" are the people they write about in the history books that contributed to the escalation and eventual collapse of civil society. They won't be writing about me, I assure you. Having been trying to talk sense into people on both "sides" now for years, and just seeing the tide of hatred roll over them all eventually as they retreat into their bubbles and sever relationships with the half of the country they see as (in the latest analogy) a virus, I'm about ready to give up and just be prepared to protect my family.
In many instances, police reportedly began or escalated the violence, but some observers nevertheless blame the protesters. The claim that the protests are violent — even when the police started the violence — can help local, state and federal forces justify intentionally beating, gassing or kettling the people marching, or reinforces politicians’ calls for “law and order.”
There were some who made an argument like that (and given how close the states necessary to swing the election were, its not hard to see how if interference had any effect at all, it could easily have been a decisive one); and, sure, also the same kind of complaints occurred with regard to the Republican FBI director’s last-minute misconduct with regard to the handling of the Clinton email investigation, but for both of those it was in, at most, a moral sense of “stolen” with regard to the election; the legal allegations were never about an invalid election.
Even though the fact of foreign interference and the allegations of collusion (and, the much less complex facts of Comey’s behavior) were present well before the election, there was no issue raised in the electoral vote count meeting the minimum member-from-each-house requirement for challenging any states electoral votes. There were no lawsuits against states votes predicated on either of these objections. There was no rally with either the sitting Democratic President or the defeated Democratic candidate and other Democratic elites riling up a mob that proceeded to attack the Capitol to use violence to alter the outcome of the count based on the objections. There was no even remote equivalence, and the both-sides-ism here is not something anyone with even casual familiarity with the facts could plausibly argue in good faith.