General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Before attacking the Dems for not including an Article of Impeachment on Bribery, consider this: [View all]markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)We're talking about bribery as the framers of the Constitution understood it, and NOT the federal statutory definition, which didn't exist in 1787, and in fact wouldn't exist until 1962! The operative understanding when the Constitutional language about impeachment was debated, written and adopted was the English common law understanding of the term, under which Trump's conduct clearly qualifies. Sure, Republicans would have tried to muddy the waters by bringing up the federal statute, but that line of argument could have easily been shut down -- and in a way that the average voter could readily understand -- by pointing out that there was no federal statute in 1787, and thus the language cannot be deemed to be limited by a statute that wouldn't exist for another 175 years!
Instead, by relying on the assertion that Trump "acted against the national interest," they invite the counter argument that the president is entitled to have a different view of what is in the "national interest" than his predecessors, or even than career government officials.
Also, by NOT including bribery, they unwittingly undermine one of their examples: the White House meeting. Republicans will doubtless cite the unanimous Supreme Court decision in McDonnell v. United States, which held that meetings do not constitute "official acts" under the federal bribery statute. Had they included bribery among the charges, it would have enabled them to expand the entire discussion of bribery beyond the federal statutory definition. But they won't be able to do that now.
This was a colossal mistake!