Articles of impeachment decision rationale - addendum

Previous post.

Several freshmen moderate Democrats only got behind the impeachment inquiry after questions were raised over whether Trump sought to leverage the power of his office to push Ukraine to probe his political rivals. And in recent days, some of them -- including New York Reps. Max Rose and Anthony Brindisi -- indicated they would likely oppose an article focused on the Mueller findings.

Ultimately, Democrats chose to push forward on the two articles in a bid to keep their caucus mainly united, other than two Democrats -- Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey and Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota -- who previously voted against moving forward with the impeachment inquiry and are signaling they'll vote against the articles.

[...]

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler sent a letter to House Democrats Tuesday afternoon that said the introduction of the impeachment articles "will not end the work of House committees to pursue ongoing investigations into Presidential misconduct, and those will proceed despite unprecedented obstruction."

"Some of these investigations relate to the Articles of Impeachment and may gather additional information for use in a Senate trial, adding to the already overwhelming case," he wrote.

[...]

Multiple Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee say that the conversation they had privately with Laurence Tribe, a Harvard University law professor, during a Saturday prep session helped convince them that narrowly crafted articles focused on Ukraine was the best path.

Similarly, in recent days, Pelosi has called Trump's handling of Ukraine "bribery" -- something specifically referenced outlining the constitutional powers of impeachment. But House Democrats looked into the issue and found that the precedent for charging a President with bribery vague and confusing, so they decided ultimately to leave that out.

  CNN