There's a big difference between partisans doing that, and an actual president claiming the election is stolen for months, asking his supporters to march on the Capitol to deny the rights of voters to have their vote confirmed, calling state officials to ask them to "find votes", etc.
You said it, they brought all of that to courts, which means it was entirely supported by the full establishment of the party, not just a fringe part of it.
The fact you can't even see the major difference makes me think you are clearly looking at just one side.
I think that's an apples-to-oranges comparison (no pun intended).
It would be fairer to compare the Democrats' allegations about Russia to the Republicans' allegations about China, i.e. accusations that Biden is anywhere between a useful-idiot-for to an outright-puppet-of the CCP.
AFAIK the Democrat position has been that, for both elections, the voting/counting mechanisms have withstood targetted attacks by state actors, and in both cases gave overall tallies which correspond to the electorate's choices, within an acceptable margin of error (I'm stopping at the tallies, to avoid the separate debate regarding the electoral college versus the popular vote).
Some Democrats also allege foreign interference with the electorate's choices, through widespread misinformation and propaganda. As an extreme example, fewer people may have voted for Trump if Russian troll farms weren't claiming that Clinton harvests child organs (or whatever Q-adjacent bullshit was spreading around Facebook at the time). It's perfectly consistent to make that claim, whilst also claiming that those lie-induced Trump votes were subsequently collated and counted correctly towards the totals.
AFAIK the Republican-led investigation found the Democrats' position to be essentially correct, that there were targetted attacks on infrastructure, and misinformation/propaganda attacks nudging the electorate towards Trump. No evidence of collusion was found, i.e. that Trump was working for foreign adversaries, or foreign adversaries were working for Trump, or they were coordinating ahead of time. That would (of course) have been even worse, but the lack of (evidence of) such collusion doesn't make the idea of foreign adversaries weaponising US voters for their own ends any more palatable.
In short, choosing positions/policies/rhetoric that is useful to adversaries is not itself criminal; it could simply be naivety or coincidence. Yet knowing that a candidate's positions/policies/rhetoric is useful to adversaries would be pertinent information for voters.
You can look at the retraction itself [0] and it says nothing close to "it wasn't based in reality."
What it says is that Trump's actual words were that the state official would "find things that are gonna be unbelievable" and that "[w]hen the right answer comes out, you’ll be praised."
The specific words were a misquote, but there is no doubt from the call itself that Trump was pressuring state officials into supporting his big lie.
Trump did plenty of dumb stuff. It bothers me when people misquote him so bad they are practically lie about it because it makes people doubt all of the bad things he really did.
Did Trump do something improper by calling the Governor and pressuring them? Yea. Was it so bad as directly tell them to "find votes"? No.
I agree with you, but you have to recognize that one is just an escalation of the other. Both are terrible, even if Trump being worse. Trump would not have been possible if discourse had not already broken down.
We created a culture where this devolution of discourse was acceptable, and so fewer voters found Trump's rhetoric unacceptable - partially because they heard more and more extreme rhetoric coming from the other side - whether on social media, MSM, or even some far left wing political leaders.
Incidents like when the Bernie Sanders campaign worker SHOT a US GOP senator. ...the reporting on that was extremely asymmetric between GOP and Dem news media.
These sorts of escalations, and the MSM pandering to their base, creates a cycle of hyperbole and misinformation.
We really need to think about how we can get out of this mess and bring the rational majority back to a central forum of discourse.
You said it, they brought all of that to courts, which means it was entirely supported by the full establishment of the party, not just a fringe part of it.
The fact you can't even see the major difference makes me think you are clearly looking at just one side.