No that's all good.
A given ilk with high-profile cd/ts on their side of the aisle criticizing a different ilk for the same is lolfail.
For example, if someone rather tangential, like say failed VP nominee and P candidate John Edwards used campaign money to pay off his side pieces, and the other ilk screamed bloody murder, and then the shoe was on the other, much more relevant, and very orange foot, it wouldn't be a witch hunt. It would be a (rare and satisfying) example of the powerful being held to account on both sides.
If, for example, a certain President's crackhead son was on the board of some company when a certain President was VP, and that was the end of the world over some seven digit figure, and then a different President's son in law failed to be honest enough to earn a security clearance two dozen times and got a no conditions 99 year loan to the tune of ten figures, well, that'd be quantitatively a thousand times worse in terms of the means, and no comparison in terms of the involvement in the administration.