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.

Did Trump tell "them" to leave if they don't like this country or "leave, fix their own countries problems, and then, come back?'

We have the definitive statement as reported by The Hill:

"Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done," he added. "These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that [Speaker] Nancy Pelosi [D-Calif.] would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!"

Why is this important?  Because anti-Trump pundits like Judge Napolitano, Fox News legal consultant,  persists in misquoting the President.  

The Judge,  in a Fox News op-ed,  spent an entire article, here,  ranting about the unAmerican "love it or leave it" tweet from the President,  when,  as a matter of fact, that is not what Trump actually said.  His actual wording appears in The Hill quote above.  

My question is this:  How many times has Napolitano gotten his facts and his legal conclusions wrong?  Answer:  more time than I can count.  This is precisely why I much prefer Gregg Jarrett to the Judge.

Napolitano caught in an anti-Trump lie.

Andrew McCarthy BLASTS Judge Napolitano’s Accusations of Trump Campaign Violations : “That’s Not What Happened at All!” (Video)

Opinion on the 2nd Amendment from Judge Andrew P. Napolitano. Among other features, the judge explains "natural rights" and their import to a free people.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. And yet, the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a break on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.

As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government, and as our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior -- like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy -- immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission. . . . . . .  read the full article at Fox News.