Does it then not prove that every leader thats ever been could have made everything better but chose not to?
Why is there only one that does this differently?
Not stopping an invasion of the country, or rather enabling it by inaction, is a bit different that just a "thing" that could have been improved. One is incompetence, the other is treasonous.
Does it then not prove that every leader thats ever been could have made everything better but chose not to? Why is there only one that does this differently?
Because they were all getting a chunk of the action. Follow the money.
Not stopping an invasion of the country, or rather enabling it by inaction, is a bit different that just a "thing" that could have been improved. One is incompetence, the other is treasonous.