I will say that the Democrats did very little to *force* the GOP to focus on specific facts today. Why? Because by not bringing a bribery article—and instead bringing a noncriminal catch-all "abuse of power" article—they gave the GOP its "what is this all about?" talking points.
Americans know *exactly* what bribery is, and what sort of facts prove it. Americans don't know what "abuse of power" constitutes, because it's not a subject we generally discuss. So the GOP can today pretend to be just as confused as America. So that was a bad call by Democrats.
The irony here is that it was moderate Democrats who are afraid of Trump and his voters who forced the Democrats to put *all the elements of bribery* in an article of impeachment for "abuse of power" but *not* bring a bribery article. That robs Democrats of the *word* "bribery."
I understand I'll get pushback for criticizing Democrats right now, but I'm telling you that from a legal and political standpoint it is *killing* the Democrats that they can't use the word "bribery" today because the GOP response would be, "Okay, so where's the bribery article?"
Every time I hear Republicans complain they have no idea what conduct we're talking about, it enrages me because they know very well we're talking about BRIBERY but that the Democrats can't say BRIBERY because Democrats who were *scared of Trump* wanted to avoid the word BRIBERY.
Ask any lawyer you know and they'll tell you the beginning of the abuse of power article lays out the elements of BRIBERY. So we have a *ridiculous* situation: we're clearly talking about BRIBERY but no one can say BRIBERY yet people on TV are saying Democrats have a strong case.
This is what I mean when I say the Democrats are bad at politics—and this is what I mean when I say people get annoyed at media for making representations that don't match reality. If you're in media, don't tell us how amazing the case is when you *can't even call it what it is*.
If I have to hear one more TV analyst explain that "abuse of power"—something Americans don't really understand in this context—is way worse than BRIBERY, which not only is something Americans well understand but which is *in the Constitution* as impeachable, I'm going to scream.
The one thing I'd ask folks not to do is provide legal analysis in the comments to this thread unless you've familiarity with the law, have read the bribery statute, and understand the statute includes *soliciting* a bribe as well as offering one. It fits these facts *perfectly*.
All I mean by that is that even Democrats think BRIBERY fits these facts perfectly, as they put the elements of soliciting a bribe (per the federal criminal statute for bribery) at the *very beginning of the abuse of power article*. So saying this wasn't bribery is a non-starter.
My point: if a Republican asks you what the conduct involved here is, tell them BRIBERY (soliciting a bribe). If they ask why that wasn't brought as an article, say that the abuse of power article incorporates BRIBERY by laying out all the elements of BRIBERY in the article. /end
