Thanks for airing your frustrations regarding are they (Dems/Mueller/Schiff/Pelosi) going to bungle it again - @Keaton_James
What we all want is to have the Dems with Schiff in charge to hit-em-over-the-head with facts, details and convincing evidence of bribery, extortion, abuse of power, obstruction and the like. Yes we want a full TKO 
The Pelosi/Schiff/Nadler calculation is right now IMHO is that they have the facts lined up with testimony, and all sorts of receipts to get T on charges of how he’s used the office for his own personal gain, via bribery and the other articles they are defining as abuse of power, along with Obstruction etc.
The gist of it is the House can and WILL Impeach him. They have the votes, they have the public support. It may never get passed the Senate but that maybe good enough, because of all the party-line loyalist Republicans. This is enough perhaps to damage his reputation, and dampen his zest for self-service and slow his 2020 roll.
That said…here’s an article on what perhaps the Founding Fathers thought was an abuse of power…ie, asking for a favor ie, bribery or forcing one for a favor, extortion, but in essence this is saying anything a President does the Congress deems wrong can be impeached. So semantically it does not make a huge difference. Maybe the Dems/Schiff are worried about the constant R refrain of, well the military support was delivered, and just asking is not bribery and case closed. Not sure…but I am so sure they are being very careful with their words.
Unlike the guy in London representing us who spouts every idiocy possible. 
The Constitution invokes the concept of “bribery” without explaining what the term encompasses. Scholars say that silence is likely because the meaning of the term was well understood from English common law and parliamentary practice.
The Founders intended for the concept of bribery, for impeachment purposes, to broadly cover any “corrupt abuse of power to obtain personal benefit,” three lawyers for the nonprofit group Protect Democracy wrote on the website Lawfare. They recently compiled a survey of early American and English writings and precedents about bribery, as well as discussion in more contemporary scholarly works on impeachment.
Why does it matter if this is “bribery” specifically?
Primarily for political messaging. Critics of Mr. Trump have generally been talking about the scandal in terms of more abstract concepts like “abuse of power” and the Latin phrase “quid pro quo,” which means exchanging one thing for another.
Those phrases can be difficult to understand and raise the question of whether they amount to an impeachable offense. Ms. Pelosi’s sharpened rhetoric was part of a shift in which Democrats and other critics of Mr. Trump have sought to talk about their allegations using a more plain-English term — and one that is explicitly impeachable.
What about extortion?
Some analysts have cited extortion as another framework for thinking about Mr. Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine. One version of this offense is when a public official unlawfully obtains something of value, like an illegal fee, from another person by threatening to take or withhold some official action in a way that would harm the victim.
Last month, when Mick Mulvaney, Mr. Trump’s acting chief of staff, gave a news conference in which he appeared to admit that the arrangement was a “quid pro quo” — which he later walked back — he also told reporters to “get over it” because it is routine for the United States government to hold up foreign aid to get a recipient country to change some policy.
As a description of using foreign aid as a lever in foreign policy, Mr. Mulvaney was correct. But the question boils down to whether Mr. Trump was seeking to coerce Ukrainian officials into actions to benefit the United States or to benefit himself.
Does it matter whether an attempted bribe succeeded?
Not legally.
Mr. Trump’s defenders have repeatedly argued that Mr. Trump committed no impeachable offense because he ultimately released the military aid to Ukraine in September, even though Mr. Zelensky had not announced any investigations.
Critics note that Mr. Trump released aid to Ukraine only after the White House learned that a whistle-blower had filed a complaint attempting to tell lawmakers that Mr. Trump was using his official powers to coerce Ukraine into helping his re-election campaign, and amid increasing and bipartisan pressure from Congress for the security assistance to be released.
In any case, while the impeachment process is not a court of criminal law, if it were, arguing that the scheme failed would be no defense: The federal statute specifically designates even an attempt to solicit a bribe as a crime.
Jonathan Chait of New York magazine has colorfully labeled this the “Sideshow Bob” defense, after a character in “The Simpsons” whose plot to kill Bart Simpson was foiled. In a 1994 episode, the imprisoned Sideshow Bob denounced his conviction for attempted murder: “Convicted of a crime I didn’t even commit. Hah! Attempted murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry? Do they?”
