I don’t really understand this way of thinking. If someone from USA breaks a law at some point, that doesn’t prevent USA from enforcing a similar law in the future. Not everything is universalist - the interests of the parties are at odds here, and restricting oneself to behaving in a universalist fashion (as a nation) when nobody else does that will just put you at a disadvantage.

On the Jobs example - do you expect the US government to enforce Chinese law there? Does Jobs violating Chinese law affect what laws the USA can enforce decades later? This makes no sense.