@washingtonpost  @PostOutlookThe  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  @PostOutlookA  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  @PostOutlookHe  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  @PostOutlookAnd  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  @PostOutlookThat  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.