Let's ignore the fact that all parties including the EU, the countries within the EU, IMF, ant-corruption activists in Ukraine and the United States all wanted that Ukrainian prosecutor fired due to his unwillingness to actually prosecute corruption.
Even if that's true, don't you think there was just a slight conflict of interest for Biden to be the one to levy the threat, given that his son was on the board of the company being investigated by that prosecutor and receiving a fat monthly paycheck? By Joe Biden's own statement to Hunter, expressing incredulity about the position--"I hope you know what you're doing." Thus, even if what you're saying is true, don't you think it would have been far more appropriate for someone else to leverage that threat, in order to avoid the patent appearance of impropriety? Can't we be honest and admit that, at the very least?