The definition of bribery under the federal statutes is pretty unambiguous
From Benjamin Wittes at Lawfare:
That said, the bribery statute offers a reasonable working definition of what it means to bribe a public official: Whoever ... directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official ... to influence any official act has committed the offense.
Whats more, the statute also offers a reasonable working definition of what it means for a public official to demand a bribe: Whoever ... being a public official
directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally ... in return for ... being influenced in the performance of any official act also has committed the offense.
-snip-
This exchange (see link for the exchange between Schiff and Sondland) seems to me unambiguously to describe a corrupt demand for something personally valuable (investigations of political opponents) in return for being influenced in the performance of two official acts (granting a White House meeting and releasing hundreds of millions of dollars in military assistance).
-snip-
Was Trump here acting corruptly? Duh. Seeking investigations of political foes for personal political gain is a prototypically corrupt. But beyond that, Sondland was clear in his testimony that Trump wasnt actually asking for the investigations themselves, but merely the announcement of them. In other words, he wanted not an investigation of corruption, but the political optics of Ukraines declaring that his political opponents were under investigation. Whats more, Sondland also confirmed that Trump seemed not to care a whit about Ukrainethat he only cared about the investigations that could benefit him.
In short, a witness with first-hand knowledge of both U.S. interactions with the Ukrainians and the presidents own conduct today accused President Trump of soliciting a bribe from a foreign head of state. Whether or not this would qualify as a bribe under the criminal law, I would have no hesitation describing it as one if I were a member of Congress considering the impeachment of a president.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/gordon-sondland-accuses-president-bribery
There is no longer any doubt as to what took place. The facts have been established. But it seems to me that Congress now needs to work harder at selling the fact that Trump is guilty of bribery.