> what was the intent, what was context.

The intent and context are obviously better for the one who's clearly sending the "threat" as a political statement against selective enforcement.

> I dont know the specifics of this case. Maybe there was a miscarriage of justice. But just the fact the acts are the same doesn't show that. There is a lot more factors to consider

... and you're willing to give the benefit of doubt to those with power here. You are aware you're making that implicit statement, right?