Did the democrats make a mistake by not including 'Bribery" explicitly as an article?

[triron]

[Tommy_Carcetti]

1. I personally wanted it.

Actually, Extortion is the more accurate crime.

[Poiuyt]

4. It actually fits the bribery statutes to a T

This is a portion of the statute:

“Whoever ... being a public official … directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally ... in return for ... being influenced in the performance of any official act” has committed the offense.

I wanted bribery listed as one of the articles too because that crime is specifically spelled out in the Constitution. But I guess it would be more difficult to prove and explain to the public.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. No, because bribery is generally thought of as the kind of simple situation

where somebody offers or gives a politician an envelope full of cash in exchange for the politician's vote on an issue of interest to the briber. In Trump's case, the explanation of who bribed whom is more complicated. Did Trump try to bribe Zelensky with an offer of military assistance money (actually, the release of authorized funds) in exchange for Zelensky promising to "investigate" Biden and announce the investigation? Or did Trump solicit a bribe from Zelensky in the form of Zelensky promising to "investigate" Biden and announce the investigation in exchange for Trump releasing the funds? Or was part of the bribe Zelensky's desire for a White House meeting, which was also a dangled promise? Factually it's too complicated to fit into the public's understanding of what bribery is, although it does fit the statutory definition. I think they wanted to keep it as simple and easily understandable as possible and give the GOP as little leeway as possible to play word games with the definition of bribery.

[abqtommy]

3. I want a unicorn, too, but I'm not gonna second-guess Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler

or any other Democrat's tactics at this point. They haven't disappointed me yet.

[dajoki]

5. I also wanted obstruction of justice n/t

[triron]

6. Agree. I'm baffled even more by that omission.

[dajoki]

7. I think they could have and...

should have brought in the Mueller report and tied it all together because it is part of the same continuing crime.

[Johonny]

8. No

Because the constitutional grounds for impeachment are differing enough than the "legal" definition that it could have turned into a quagmire. While the broader article mutes the defense that Trump didn't legally bribe them.