bribery impeachment
Is there any evidence of (attempted) bribery of Ukraine by Trump
<p>I asked on out Politics site, <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/48629/why-is-trump-not-being-impeached-for-bribery">Why is Trump not being impeached for bribery?</a>, and one answer (with 5 upvotes currently) said</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The answer to this one is simple - the only logical reason to drop this article of impeachment is because there is no evidence that bribery, as it is legally defined, took place. Adam Schiff's definition of bribery is wholly irrelevant ...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It certainly seems to me - a layperson - that there appeared to be, at least, attempted bribery (or, possibly, corecion).</p>

<p>How do the legal experts here see it - not opinion based, obviously - given publicly available information, is there a case for bribery?</p>

<p>I can see that the Democrats might consider that there is a case, but not want to muddy the waters with too many articles of impeachment, or that poster on Politics may be correct.</p>

<p>Does anyone see a legal case for (attempted) bribery in the publicly available information? </p>

<h2>Proof is for a courtroom</h2>

<p>Or in this case, the Senate.</p>

<p>Proof is what you get when the trial is complete, the evidence has been considered and the verdict is in.</p>

<h2>Is there evidence?</h2>

<p>The Federal crime of <a href="https://www.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/public-integrity/a_guide_to_commonly_used_federal_statutes_in_public_corruption_cases.pdf" rel="noreferrer">bribery</a> :</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>that the defendants acted with corrupt intent to engage in a <em>quid pro quo</em>, that is, “a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official
   act.” United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers, 526 U.S. 398, 404-05 (1999).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There is testimony from a number of witnesses that the President did that. That’s evidence.</p>

<p>A quick answer: It's the politics, Mawg! </p>

<p>The House managers, like all prosecutors, based their charging decisions on more than whether they thought they had proof that the President was guilty of bribery. Like all prosecutors, they know their view of the strength of the case may be irrelevant, since someone else -- judge or jury -- will decide whether they have proved their case. So, like all prosecutors, they decided which charges to bring based in part on their assessment of how likely they are to win using the different charges. Like all prosecutors facing a jury (in this case, the Senate), they took into account how a jury is likely to react to the charges. And, like all elected prosecutors, the House managers care about the impact of the case on their chances of getting re-elected.</p>

<p>In this case, I am sure their decision not to charge on bribery reflected all of those factors. They may not have wanted to charge based on a federal crime. Charging based on a federal crime would make it more likely the trial in the Senate would turn on the exact meaning of legal terms. Such discussions would not help the Democrats, who know they are going to lose. </p>
