The former vice president’s threat to withhold a loan guarantee from Ukraine involved financing that was entirely at the executive's discretion. And his threat was made in the service of the unified, official public policy of the United States. It did
not involve legally mandated federal appropriations. Trump’s withholding of military assistance from Ukraine involved improper delay of congressionally authorized federal appropriations that were not at his discretion, and it contradicted unified, public, official policy of the United States.
Those two differences are huge.
In Biden’s case, the imperative to fire the corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor came up from the ranks of the diplomatic corps. At all known levels of the U.S. government, there was unified agreement that the prosecutor impeded fighting corruption. Moreover, the corruption he enabled was directly harmful to the efficacy of the economic assistance the United States was offering to Ukraine. The prosecutor was lax on, or obstinately opposed to, investigating the very oligarchs who were in positions to misuse the aid for corrupt purposes. (The European community strongly agreed with this assessment of the prosecutor, by the way — a fact not ethically binding but still relevant to the intention behind forcing him out.)
--
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ntirely-rancid