He wasn't convicted of the two things you're point to, so they're just accusations.

If people should get banned for doing something illegal outside Twitter (or just being accused of doing so) then millions of people should get banned from Twitter.

The second example has many different interpretations. The most favorable one is that Trump was urging them to check everywhere to make sure no ballots were missed. Interpreting it as a direct call for ballot stuffing is also possible, but we can't assume that.

Humans tend to have good-faith interpretations of everything said by people they like and bad-faith interpretations of everything said by people they hate.

Which ones, and from which court were such judgements made?