Is this how it works in Nevada: Republicans get prosecuted; Democrats get defended?

I hope there's not two standards for whether Democratic Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto defends or prosecutes public officials. But in light of how her office handled the prosecution of Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki and how, instead, her office plans to defend former nuclear projects director Bob Loux, the question does cross your mind.

With Kroliki, a Republican, the AG's office has decided that while Krolicki may not have enriched himself or lost taxpayer money, he accounted for state money incorrectly according to state law. Krolicki said he received the blessing to the AG's office in that accounting. Nevertheless, the AG has indicted him and plans to prosecute.

Meanwhile with Loux, a Democrat, the AG's office has decided that Loux had "good intent" in unilaterally enriching himself by raising his pay in violation of state law. Loux said he had permission from the Guinn administration to do so. Therefore, instead of prosecuting Loux, they will defend him.

What's the logic here?  Republicans get prosecuted because they don't have "good intent" but Democrats get defended because they do?

Look, there are several moving parts to both of these cases, and I've not seen anything so far with the AG's office under Catherine Cortez Masto, that makes me leap to any conclusions about politically motivated actions. But on the surface it looks like the AG's office is dead wrong in one of these cases.