How do the seven articles in H.Res.353 compare, clause-by-clause, to the articles of impeachment adopted in prior Trump impeachment(s)?

1. The architecture: seven sweeping articles vs the narrower prior impeachments

H.Res.353 enumerates seven discrete articles that accuse the President of systemic, varied misconduct across domestic governance, fiscal prerogatives, foreign policy, civil liberties, and corruption—each framed as a separate constitutional violation ^{[1] [2]}; by contrast, the House’s first impeachment around the 2019 Ukraine call focused primarily on an abuse of the presidential power to solicit foreign assistance in an election and an associated obstruction-of-Congress claim, and the later effort surrounding January 6 centered on incitement of insurrection—fewer in number and more tightly tethered to singular episodes ^{[3] [4]}.

2. Article-by-article pairings: where 353 overlaps earlier grounds and where it departs

Article I of H.Res.353 — obstruction of justice, due process, and breach of the duty to faithfully execute laws — echoes earlier obstruction themes but expands beyond the 2019 obstruction-of-Congress theory into a general charge of impeding legal processes and denying due process ^{[1] [2]}; Article VI’s bribery and corruption allegation revives constitutional concerns that underpinned aspects of past scrutiny (payments, quid pro quos), but H.Res.353 ties those to a broader pattern, including alleged solicitations and conflicts of interest that other reporting frames as Emoluments-related ^{[5] [2]}.

3. New legal framings not prominent in earlier impeachments

Articles II through V of H.Res.353—usurpation of Congress’s appropriations power, abuse of trade powers and international aggression, violation of First Amendment rights, and the creation of an unlawful office—are largely novel as formal impeachment articles against this President; prior impeachments did not, in the House-adopted articles, allege a standalone appropriations usurpation, a trade/war-powers abuse as a discrete count, or the creation of an “unlawful office” as a separate impeachable felony or misdemeanor ^{[1] [2]}. The text of H.Res.353 frames these as structural threats to separation of powers and civil liberties rather than single misdeeds ^[2].

4. Clause-level clarity and evidentiary posture in the texts available

The H.Res.353 preprint and CRS summaries set out broad allegations and illustrative facts—e.g., claimed efforts to dismiss prosecutions, alleged improper foreign solicitations, and use of executive power without congressional authorization—but the available public summaries and preprint do not, in the sources provided, present a fully annotated, clause-by-clause evidentiary appendix comparable to the voluminous record compiled in the 2019 inquiry ^{[2] [1] [6]}. That limits a literal clause-to-clause mapping where one could track identical statutory language or mirror-image factual predicates across impeachments ^[2].

5. Political context, sponsors, and competing narratives

The resolution’s sponsor and cosponsors and the legislative tracking pages identify the political authorship and intent behind H.Res.353, and observers will read its breadth either as necessary to capture an alleged pattern of constitutional breach or as a maximalist, partisan project that broadens impeachment’s reach beyond past precedents ^{[2] [7] [8]}. Sources show H.Res.353’s framers place procedural and constitutional rationales at the center, while critics historically have accused impeachment proponents of overreach—an implicit agenda that colors how clause parallels are argued and received ^{[2] [9]}.

6. Bottom line: continuity in themes, divergence in scope and legal theory

Substantively, H.Res.353 inherits familiar impeachment themes—abuse of power, obstruction, corruption—from earlier Trump-related impeachments but turns those themes into seven distinct constitutional counts and adds novel structural claims (appropriations usurpation, trade/war-powers abuse, unlawful office creation, First Amendment violations) that were not adopted as separate articles in 2019 or 2021; available public texts and summaries document the expanded scope but do not supply a complete clause-for-clause evidentiary mapping to every prior article, which constrains definitive linguistic one-to-one comparisons ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.