Rep. Jim Himes James (Jim) Andres HimesMany Democrats want John Bolton's testimony, but Pelosi stays mum SEC's Clayton demurs on firing of Manhattan US attorney he would replace Democrats face tough questions with Bolton MORE (D-Conn.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said the focus of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump Donald John TrumpFederal prosecutor speaks out, says Barr 'has brought shame' on Justice Dept. Former Pence aide: White House staffers discussed Trump refusing to leave office Progressive group buys domain name of Trump's No. 1 Supreme Court pick MORE needs to shift away from the use of "quid pro quo" to describe Trump's alleged behavior.

"They’ve got to get off the quid pro quo thing, because it's complicated, they've already attested to the fact that it occurred, and what we're dealing with here is corruption, abuse of power in a way that damaged American national security," Himes said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Himes told host Chuck Todd Charles (Chuck) David ToddMurkowski: Supreme Court nominee should not be taken up before election Republican senator says plans to confirm justice before election 'completely consistent with the precedent' Sunday shows - Trump team defends coronavirus response MORE he has two problems with the term.

WATCH: Rep. @Jahimes says that the use of the word quid pro quo "is complicated," adding "what we are dealing with here is corruption, abuse of power in a way that damaged American national security." #MTP



"... It is probably best not to use Latin words to explain it." pic.twitter.com/uPKFiqMgMh — Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) November 10, 2019

"Number one, when you're trying to persuade the American people of something that is really pretty simple, which is the that the president acted criminally and extorted in the way a mob boss would extort somebody, a vulnerable foreign country, it's probably best not to use Latin words to explain it," he said.

Himes also said extortion doesn't require a "you give me this and I give you that" deal.

"It simply requires using your muscle to get something you don’t have a right to," Himes added. ADVERTISEMENT

Himes said the "crowning absurdity" is nearly every witness has now testified "pretty much admitting" that "there was a quid pro quo."

Republicans had defended against such a deal citing U.S. ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland's testimony. Sondland changed his testimony to say there was a quid pro quo.

Republicans are now dismissing a quid pro quo as "gosh it wasn't that bad, it was exactly the same as Joe Biden Joe BidenFormer Pence aide: White House staffers discussed Trump refusing to leave office Progressive group buys domain name of Trump's No. 1 Supreme Court pick Bloomberg rolls out M ad buy to boost Biden in Florida MORE or Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonBloomberg rolls out M ad buy to boost Biden in Florida Hillicon Valley: Productivity, fatigue, cybersecurity emerge as top concerns amid pandemic | Facebook critics launch alternative oversight board | Google to temporarily bar election ads after polls close Trump pledges to make Juneteenth a federal holiday, designate KKK a terrorist group in pitch to Black voters MORE," Himes said.

The next public phase of the inquiry begins next week with public hearings kicking off on Wednesday.