What specific evidence and charges are contained in H.Res.353 and other recent impeachment resolutions?
Executive summary
H.Res.353, introduced by Rep. Shri Thanedar and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, is an initiating article that alleges seven distinct grounds for impeaching President Donald J. Trump and frames those grounds as “high crimes and misdemeanors” warranting removal [1] [2]. The resolution’s text lists specific categories of misconduct—ranging from obstruction of justice to bribery and the creation of an unlawful office—and cites examples inside the document; several initial cosponsors subsequently withdrew their names, underscoring the political sensitivity and limited immediate momentum of the measure [3] [4] [5].
1. The resolution and its seven articles: what the bill actually charges
H.Res.353 lays out seven articles of impeachment: (I) obstruction of justice, violation of due process, and breach of the duty to faithfully execute the laws; (II) usurpation of Congress’s appropriations power; (III) abuse of trade powers and international aggression; (IV) violations of First Amendment rights; (V) creation of an unlawful office; (VI) bribery and corruption; and (VII) tyranny, with the text asserting these acts demonstrate unfitness to govern and a continuing threat to the Constitution [3] [4] [1].
2. The specific allegations named inside the text
The resolution’s body does more than list legal categories; it narrates factual allegations to support them, including alleged efforts by the president to influence or dismiss criminal charges against named officials (one passage references an attempt to dismiss bribery and fraud charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams as part of a purported quid pro quo), and claims of using trade and foreign policy powers improperly—examples that the resolution frames as evidence of abuse of office [6] [1].
3. What counts as ‘evidence’ in H.Res.353 vs. what is external proof
The document itself functions largely as a compilation of allegations, contemporaneous acts, and asserted motives presented as a factual narrative; the resolution cites conduct and contexts but does not, within the publicly posted text, append investigative exhibits, sworn depositions, or judicial findings as standalone evidentiary attachments [1] [6]. That means the resolution asserts specific acts and links them to constitutional offenses inside its articles, but independent corroboration or a fuller evidentiary record would be developed only if the Judiciary Committee or the House chooses to pursue investigations and hearings beyond the resolution text [2] [7].
4. Legal framing and claimed constitutional violations
H.Res.353 frames its claims against constitutional hooks: it references Article II’s Take Care Clause, the First Amendment, appropriations powers, and the constitutional definitions of bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors to translate alleged conduct into impeachable offenses, asserting that the cumulative conduct amounts to betrayal of the public trust and threats to separation of powers [1] [6]. The resolution therefore blends statutory-style allegations (e.g., bribery) with broader constitutional charges (e.g., “tyranny”), a rhetorical approach common to impeachment articles but one that requires legal and factual unpacking in committee to test sufficiency [1].
5. Political context, co-sponsors, and procedural posture
Although introduced as a privileged resolution, H.Res.353 attracted minimal cosponsorship and saw three Democrats rescind their names after learning the measure had not been vetted by party leadership—moves that the lawmakers’ offices described as cautionary and procedural rather than substantive repudiations of the allegations [5] [4]. The resolution remains referred to the Judiciary Committee, meaning any evidentiary development, hearings, or a House floor vote depend on committee action and broader House calculations [2] [7].
6. Bottom line: what the text proves and what remains to be proven
The resolution provides a catalog of alleged misconduct and links those allegations to seven impeachment articles in text form, including at least one named operational example (the purported effort regarding Mayor Eric Adams), but the publicly available bill text itself is a charging document rather than an assembled, adjudicated evidentiary record; proving the allegations would require committee investigations, testimony, documentary exhibits, or court findings beyond the resolution as introduced [6] [1]. Readers should therefore distinguish between the resolution’s internal assertions and the independent factual proof that would be developed only through subsequent investigatory or judicial processes [2] [7].