What are the specific seven articles listed in H.Res.353 and the evidence cited for each?
Executive summary
H.Res.353, introduced by Rep. Shri Thanedar and cosponsored by at least one House Democrat, lays out seven articles of impeachment against President Donald J. Trump, alleging a range of constitutional abuses from obstruction to “tyranny” and recommending impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors [1] [2]. The resolution’s text names the seven charges and summarizes the types of underlying conduct and investigations it relies upon, but the public bill text compiles allegations and references to investigations rather than offering a discrete docket of evidentiary exhibits tied to each article [3] [1].
1. Obstruction of justice, violation of due process, and breach of duty to faithfully execute the laws — the accusation and sources cited
Article I accuses the President of obstructing justice, denying due process, and failing to faithfully execute the laws; the resolution frames these claims as arising from the President’s conduct across executive actions and interactions with law enforcement and prosecutors, and it marshals prior investigations and public records as the factual foundation in support of that charge [3] [1]. The bill text compiles assertions drawn from government investigations and public reporting rather than listing specific evidentiary exhibits within the resolution itself, so the resolution functions as a legislative summary pointing readers to underlying inquiries rather than a trial-level evidentiary record [1] [4].
2. Usurpation of Congress’ appropriations power — what is alleged and where the resolution points
Article II alleges the President usurped Congress’s power of the purse by diverting or withholding funds and exercising authorities that Congress had reserved for itself; the resolution cites examples of executive actions and claimed manipulations of funding authorities documented in public materials and prior committee probes as the factual basis for this article [3] [1]. The resolution’s language references institutional constitutional principles and investigative summaries but does not, in the bill text, append the underlying appropriation documents or committee reports as exhibits; readers are directed implicitly to the reported investigations and public records that the sponsors cite [1] [4].
3. Abuse of trade powers and international aggression — the claim and evidentiary framing
Article III charges abuse of trade authorities and international aggression, alleging that the President misused trade tools and foreign-policy prerogatives in ways that damaged U.S. interests and violated constitutional constraints; H.Res.353 grounds this article in contemporaneous actions and reportage about unilateral trade decisions and foreign engagements already documented in public sources [3] [1]. As with other articles, the resolution summarizes alleged misconduct and refers to investigations and public records rather than embedding a formal evidentiary appendix in the resolution text [1].
4. Violation of First Amendment rights — scope and the record cited
Article IV asserts that the President violated First Amendment protections through actions that allegedly chilled speech and targeted political opponents, relying on reported incidents, communications, and prior investigatory findings cited in the resolution’s narrative [3] [1]. The text frames this as part of a broader pattern; again, the bill itself is a summary instrument that points to investigations and public documentation without reproducing all source materials within the resolution [1].
5. Creation of an unlawful office — the allegation and sources
Article V accuses the President of creating or empowering an unlawful office or officeholders—actions the resolution says circumvented lawful structures and accountability—and supports that assertion by referencing public records, administrative actions, and investigative findings included in the sponsors’ compiled narrative [3] [1]. The resolution uses statutory and constitutional argumentation backed by cited public materials, but the bill text does not function as a full evidentiary compendium [1] [4].
6. Bribery and corruption — the charge and the evidentiary posture
Article VI charges bribery and corrupt practices by the President, anchoring the accusation in reported transactions, communications, and official acts described by the sponsors in the resolution’s explanatory text and referring readers to the investigative and public-record bases those reports relied upon [3] [1]. The bill presents these allegations as part of an overarching case but stops short of attaching detailed evidentiary exhibits within the resolution itself; it therefore depends on the underlying investigations and public documents that the sponsors invoke [1].
7. Tyranny — a constitutional characterization and the supporting record
Article VII labels the President’s conduct “tyranny,” arguing that a pattern of constitutional violations and abuses of power together constitute a threat to self‑governance; the resolution’s text synthesizes prior findings, official documents, and public reports into that characterization and cites those materials in its narrative rationale [3] [1]. The resolution functions as a legislative charging document summarizing alleged facts and pointing to investigations and records rather than serving as a forensic evidence file; specific evidentiary exhibits would normally be developed in committee or trial phases beyond the introduced text [1] [5].
H.Res.353 is therefore explicit about the seven constitutional charges it presents and clear that its asserted evidence comes from prior investigations, public records, and reporting; the publicly posted bill text compiles and summarizes that record but does not itself append the full evidentiary exhibits that would be examined in committee or trial proceedings [3] [1] [4].