I don't understand why some pundits say thin case for obstruction of justice

[Honeycombe8]

When the person in power says, "Drop the case. He's a good guy. Let it go." That's as clear as it can get, I would think. Yet pundits are saying that's a thin case.

How much clearer could it be? Him saying, "You either drop the case or I'll send Guido to make you an offer you can't refuse"?

Then when Comey doesn't drop the Flynn case, Trump ultimately fires him.

This is EXACTLY what obstruction of justice would sound like. The fact that it didn't work isn't relevant.

I don't get it.

[JI7]

1. because racist right wing men are held to different standards

[luvMIdog]

2. they are playing it down for damage control to the rethugs

[chillfactor]

3. we are taking brain-dead republicans..

I have had the news on since the scoop broke and all I have heard is it is a clear case of obstruction of justice.....the problem is the republicans will never act upon it unless there is a an uproar from the people and it backs the republicans into a corner whereby they fear for their jobs.

[Honeycombe8]

4. Well, I'm watching regular news shows.

So the pundits are lawyers and such. I wasn't watching Maddow and such. Those shows may pick different pundits.

[duncang]

5. Some are covering for him

Some of the lawyers won't commit because they are just being lawyers. They won't commit till they see all the memos and testimony from Comey.

Johnathon Turley was even doing that.