In less than 1,500 words, the articles charge that Trump abused his office by withholding $391 million in security aid to pressure the new Ukrainian president to publicly announce the investigation into one of his leading political opponents in the 2020 election. When Trump’s scheme was revealed in a whistleblower complaint, triggering an investigation, Trump obstructed Congress by ordering government agencies and employees not to comply with congressional subpoenas.

“President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of political benefit,” the articles read. “In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.”

Ever since special counsel Robert Mueller released his report in the spring, detailing approximately 10 instances of potential obstruction of justice, there has been intense interest among some Democrats that impeachment charges be brought on at least some of those allegations, given the conclusion of many former federal prosecutors (including myself) that Trump would have been charged had he not been president. But those charges don’t fit neatly in a case based upon the Ukraine scheme, which is what sparked the impeachment inquiry.

Adding extensive obstruction of justice charges based on Mueller’s report to the articles of impeachment would overwhelm their straightforward narrative. The acts of obstruction outlined in Mueller’s report are varied and require significant context to understand. If those extensive acts of obstruction were added to the articles of impeachment, the Ukraine scheme would be lost in the shuffle.

Democrats also would face obstacles proving that case, given that key witnesses have refused to appear (like former White House counsel Don McGahn) or been outright hostile (such as former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski). In contrast, Democrats managed to present a full slate of witnesses on the Ukraine scheme in public hearings even though Trump ordered seven of his current and former officials not to obey subpoenas from various House committees. Though the authors of the articles did not include a Mueller-focused charge, they did nod to the special counsel’s work and suggested that they would use Trump’s prior conduct to show a pattern of activity when they present their evidence to the Senate. “These actions,” they wrote of the president’s orders to his staff, “were consistent with President Trump’s previous efforts to undermine United States Government investigations into foreign interference in United States elections.”

Some have argued that not including charges for all of Trump’s misconduct essentially lets him off the hook for his wrongdoing. That is not the case. Impeachment is a constitutional remedy for presidential malfeasance, not a criminal statute meant to punish misconduct. Even in criminal cases, prosecutors often streamline their cases and bring only the most readily provable charges, knowing that judges can consider the broad range of a defendant’s conduct at sentencing.

That’s what Democrats did here. They focused on the Ukraine scheme that caused Speaker Nancy Pelosi to change course and call for an impeachment inquiry, knowing that the full range of Trump’s conduct is already known to senators and voters.