Which House members have sponsored or cosponsored H.Res.353, H.Res.537, and H.Res.939 and what reasons did they give?

1. H.Res.353 — sponsor, cosponsorship count, and stated rationale (what the record shows and what it does not)

The public bill text and legislative trackers identify H.Res.353 as "Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors" and show that Rep. Shri Thanedar notified the House of his intent to offer the privileged resolution, which is the procedural act by which a Member signals formal introduction (LegiScan bill text and summary; GovTrack legislative page) ^{[1] [6] [3]}. GovTrack and Congress.gov list the resolution and note a single cosponsor in addition to the sponsor—GovTrack explicitly states the resolution "has 1 cosponsor — 1 Democrat — plus its sponsor" ^{[2] [7]}. The provided reporting, however, does not include the cosponsor’s name or any sponsor floor statements or press releases explaining the factual predicates and legal theory underpinning the articles of impeachment, so any assertion about the sponsor’s or cosponsor’s stated reasons would go beyond the supplied sources ^{[2] [1]}.

2. H.Res.537 — identification confusion and lack of sponsor/cosponsor details in supplied files

One of the supplied search hits for "H.Res.537" refers to a 117th Congress entry labeled "MEMBERS Resolution," but the snippet and linked index do not include sponsor or cosponsor names or the textual explanation for that resolution in the material provided ^[4]. Separately, H.R.537 in the 119th Congress is an unrelated statutory bill titled the INCREASE Housing Affordability Act, which underscores how similar numbering across sessions and bill types can cause confusion when attempting to track sponsors by number alone ^[5]. The documents in the provided set do not give the names of the sponsor or cosponsor for H.Res.537 nor any statements of purpose or floor remarks, so the public record in these sources is silent on who sponsored or why.

3. H.Res.939 — documentation confirms the resolution exists but not which members cosponsored or their explanations

Congress.gov has a cosponsors page for H.Res.939 (119th Congress) and an official bill PDF for H.Res.939 titled an impeachment of Donald J. Trump, confirming the resolution’s filing and text in the congressional record ^{[8] [9]}. The provided snippets confirm the title and existence of the resolution, but they do not enumerate sponsor or cosponsor names nor include sponsor statements or press releases explaining the alleged high crimes and misdemeanors in the supplied material; therefore the specific identities of cosponsors and the reasons they gave are not ascertainable from these documents alone ^{[8] [9]}.

4. Why the record is incomplete here and how to interpret the gaps

The legislative rules on sponsorship and cosponsorship explain that the Member whose name appears first is the sponsor and that others are cosponsors, and that a sponsor typically provides a statement of constitutional authority at introduction; but the supplied excerpts do not contain the roster of cosponsors or sponsor statements for these three resolutions (Congress rules summary) ^{[10] [11]}. Where the sources explicitly list counts (GovTrack) or show a notification of intent (LegiScan), those are reliable procedural facts; where the sources are silent about names or explanatory text, this analysis must acknowledge that limitation rather than invent attributions or motives ^{[2] [1]}.

5. Political context and possible motives visible in the record

When a Member uses a privileged resolution to offer impeachment, as Thanedar did for H.Res.353, that choice signals urgency and can function as direct political pressure or public accountability theater beyond legislative advancement—an interpretive point supported by the procedural labeling in the bill text ^[1]. The broader pattern—multiple numbered impeachment resolutions in the same Congress—reflects partisan and messaging dynamics in the House even when full cosponsor lists or sponsor statements are not present in the provided excerpts ^{[9] [12]}. Absent explicit sponsor statements in these sources, alternative viewpoints about motive range from constitutional enforcement to partisan signaling; the supplied reporting does not resolve which motive predominates for any individual Member ^{[1] [8]}.