Tweet
It's waaayyy different than Mueller. With Russia, there was no underlying collusion at all and then the only issue was whether firing Comey (and doing other things) amounted to covering up or obstruction. So, literally, he stood accused of covering up/obstructing a crime that did not exist. Further, the central obstruction case involved him wanted to fire people he had authority to fire, could have fired, and didn't fire. That was a massive reach.
Here, the attempt isn't to cover up a crime that doesn't exist, but rather to commit a substantive crime/impeachable offense. This instance is a direct. He also, it would seem, clearly used his authority to take steps to effectuate the desired result. That is, they actually held up the aid. And, TBH, they probably held it up as much as they could. So, they did as much arm-twisting as they could.
Whereas in Mueller, if he wanted someone fired he could have fired him. The fact that they weren't fired certainly suggests to a normal person that he didn't much care if he was fired or not.
Here, the attempt isn't to cover up a crime that doesn't exist, but rather to commit a substantive crime/impeachable offense. This instance is a direct. He also, it would seem, clearly used his authority to take steps to effectuate the desired result. That is, they actually held up the aid. And, TBH, they probably held it up as much as they could. So, they did as much arm-twisting as they could.
Whereas in Mueller, if he wanted someone fired he could have fired him. The fact that they weren't fired certainly suggests to a normal person that he didn't much care if he was fired or not.
Comment