Napolitano goes off script and we can prove it:

“Here’s what I think the Democrats will want, Nick. Here’s what I think they will advance. One is bribery. The technical definition of bribery is the failure to perform an official duty until a thing of value comes your way, and they will argue that the president’s failure to disperse [sic] funds that the Congress ordered be dispersed [sic] until the recipient of the funds agreed to investigate a potential political opponent is an act of bribery. 

Here is the problem with Napolitano's conclusion at this point in the discussion:  While Congress allocates federal funds,  it is the President who disperses fund.  He is  part of the process,  something the Judge apparently does not want you to know.  Secondly,  there was never a statement promising to investigate anything. More than this fact,  Trump gave the funds and lethal military aid without a quid  . . .   which makes the Judge's statement less than "well informed."  In fact,  in the absense of a criminal withholding of federal  funds,  Napolitano's comments are just plain silly at best,  or insanely bias at worse.  
 
That is enough, in my opinion, to make it over the threshold of impeachable offenses. I don’t think it’s enough to convict of bribery, but it’s enough to allege it for the purpose of impeachment. 

More nonsense.  If it is not evidence for a conviction,  it is not enough to establish an impeachable offense.

The second charge will be high crimes and misdemeanors -- election law violation. 

Using campaign funds to pay off potential witnesses is "election law violation(s)."  But no one has referenced this charge.

The third crime will be obstruction of justice. 

 Refusing to obey a court order or a legal rep of the court  (FBI or someone in the DOJ) is the defintion of  "obstruction."  Again, that has not occurred.  Understand that the President has been the subject of four investigations (FBI, a Senate and House committee investigations, and,  the Mueller investiagtion),  all of which he fully complied with each of the four investigations.

 The fourth will be interference with the witness, and the fifth, maybe, lying under oath.” 

Finally,  the President's claim of "executive privilege" is not "interference with the witness,"  and,  to date,  the President has not lied to anyone to a legal certainty.