Thread by @AriMelber

What is the clearest Constitutional case for impeaching Trump?

He sought a bribe from Ukraine.

No one can deny that "bribery" is impeachable, because the Constitution *says* it is.

My @washingtonpost article: washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/1… @PostOutlook

@washingtonpost @PostOutlook Along with treason, bribery is the only impeachable offense *expressly* listed in the Constitution.

(Officials “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," Art II)

@washingtonpost @PostOutlook The legal argument is that Trump abused his office to seek a bribe -- corruptly soliciting something of value “in exchange for official action.”

Several administration officials have said as much (they sought a Ukraine probe in exchange for action).

@washingtonpost @PostOutlook A focus on bribery may also distinguish this case from the 2 presidential impeachments in history, neither of which resulted in conviction in the Senate

The Johnson & Clinton cases were bogged down by a difficult question: What defines a high crime or misdemeanor?

@washingtonpost @PostOutlook In those trials, the Senate did not reach a super majority to accept that the alleged offenses were high crimes.

By contrast, no one can deny that bribery is impeachable, because the Constitution says it is.

washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/1…

@washingtonpost @PostOutlook Now while there's a range of evidence against Trump -- including what is known in legal circles as his “voluntary confession” -- also note that a President has *several defenses* here.

@washingtonpost @PostOutlook He can argue that his goal was not corrupt, that he was advocating a probe he believed was good for the country (not just his campaign); he can argue others views don't determine his intent; and he can argue this is a bad precedent for foreign policy.

@washingtonpost @PostOutlook And it is true that the Constitution’s bribery prohibition doesn’t turn exclusively on whether officials say the conduct occurred -- be that Mulvaney or a whistleblower or POTUS -- but rather in the end, on Congress’s view of what the *evidence proves*

@washingtonpost @PostOutlook On intent, Trump can argue whatever personal benefit might accrue from a Biden investigation, Trump genuinely thought an investigation was in the interest of the country.

(This appeared to be the his point when saying he had a "duty" to push for a probe of corruption on Oct 4)

@washingtonpost @PostOutlook That boils down to what people believe - because if an official is *legitimately* demanding something for the benefit of the United States, that's not demanding a bribe.

@washingtonpost @PostOutlook Any debate over impeachment boils down to *what is an impeachable offense* - how does the Constitution & Congress answer that?

"High crimes" & "abuse of power" are notoriously vague.

"Bribery" is quite clear, and it's right there in the Constitution:

washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/1…