The difference is quid pro quo, son working for country VP said would not send loan money to unless fired investigation against his sons company. No matter how you spell that (we won't agree), sorry...quid pro quo in our faces.
Actually, if you check with more sources, you begin to learn that that isn't what happened. The issue is that the Prosecutor they wanted fired was corrupt and was being paid off not to investigate, not just Burisma (the company Hunter Biden worked for) but others, as well. In particularly, the investigation was not technically against Bursima and the items that were supposed to be investigated occurred a few years before Hunter Biden took a board seat with the company, instead it was against the oligarch that owned Burisma and how he used payoffs to get various contracts for Burisma.
Additionally, the "quid pro quo" did not begin with Biden. Instead, it was an issue the IMF, the State Department, and our European allies had. They are the ones who were "leading the charge" to get the prosecutor fired. You even had
Republican Senators that agreed with the move; Senators Rob Portman (R-OH), Ron Johnson (R-WI), and Mark Kirk (R-IL) all co-signed a letter agreeing with the move by the Obama Administration.
Yes, it would have been smarter for VP Biden to say that, due to the perceived conflict of interest, another US envoy should have been sent to demand the prosecutor be fired.
And let us be clear, there was never any quid pro quo that the investigation end. Yes, he said the prosecutor needed to be fired. I've never seen anything, even from those who claim it was "quid pro quo," that shows that VP Biden was attempting to stop the prosecution; that evidence just doesn't exist. They always claim that somehow, by getting that prosecutor fired (essentially the equivalent to the AG in the United States, not the one that should be doing actual investigating) it would force the end of the investigation into the oligarch, the one that owned Burisma and was accused of corruption.