Schiff alleges bribery at 5:55 pm.
After q from @MarkWarner @SenBlumenthal @MartinHeinrich:
@AdamSchiff: "The fact is that the president's conduct violated our bribery laws, as the Founders understood [bribery] & extortion, & violated our modern bribery laws..."
Much clearer.
After q from @MarkWarner @SenBlumenthal @MartinHeinrich:
@AdamSchiff: "The fact is that the president's conduct violated our bribery laws, as the Founders understood [bribery] & extortion, & violated our modern bribery laws..."
Much clearer.
2/
"The Nixon impeachment listed acts but did not state crimes. Would the Trump lawyers say that the Nixon articles were infirm unless they stated a criminal charge? That's not a constitutional principle. They want to dictate how to charge offenses. But we decided how to charge."
"The Nixon impeachment listed acts but did not state crimes. Would the Trump lawyers say that the Nixon articles were infirm unless they stated a criminal charge? That's not a constitutional principle. They want to dictate how to charge offenses. But we decided how to charge."
3/ "Trump lawyers say nothing here is akin to a crime.
Under McDonnell, this would count as bribery, withholding $100s of millions, and no doubt it's akin to bribery.
We could have charged bribery in 2 separate count, but we didn't have to..."
Under McDonnell, this would count as bribery, withholding $100s of millions, and no doubt it's akin to bribery.
We could have charged bribery in 2 separate count, but we didn't have to..."
4/ @RepAdamSchiff is saying the House decided not bring a *separate Article* on bribery (Article 3).
He's saying Article 1 alleges facts under "abuse of power," but also constitutional bribery & extortion AND felony bribery.
Good clarity.
He's saying Article 1 alleges facts under "abuse of power," but also constitutional bribery & extortion AND felony bribery.
Good clarity.
