119-hres415

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 415 Introduced in House

    (IH) ]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
 1st Session
H. RES. 415

 Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, of high 
 crimes and misdemeanors.

_______________________________________________________________________

 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 May 15, 2025

 Mr. Green of Texas submitted the following resolution; which was 
 referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

 RESOLUTION

 Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, of high 
 crimes and misdemeanors.

 Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, 
is unfit to be President, unfit to represent the American values of 
decency and morality, respectability and civility, honesty and 
propriety, reputability and integrity, is unfit to defend the ideals 
that have made America great, is unfit to defend liberty and justice 
for all as extolled in the Pledge of Allegiance, is unfit to defend the 
American ideal of all persons being created equal as exalted in the 
Declaration of Independence, is unfit to ensure domestic tranquility, 
promote the general welfare and to ensure the blessings of liberty to 
ourselves and our posterity as lauded in the preamble to the United 
States Constitution, is unfit to protect government of the people, by 
the people, for the people as elucidated in the Gettysburg Address, and 
is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, that the following 
Article of Impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
 Article of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives 
of the United States of America, in the name of itself, and of the 
people of the United States of America, against Donald John Trump, 
President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support 
of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors 
committed as President of the United States constituting harm to 
American society to the manifest injury of the people of the United 
States of America.

 article i

 Devolving democracy within the United States into authoritarianism 
with himself (Donald John Trump) as an authoritarian President. 
Merriam-Webster defines authoritarianism as, ``relating to, or favoring 
a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally 
responsible to the people''.
 The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives 
``shall have the sole Power of Impeachment'' and that the President 
``shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, 
Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' In his 
conduct while President of the United States--and in violation of his 
constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of 
the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, 
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of 
his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully 
executed--Donald John Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors, 
causing the devolution of democracy within the United States of America 
into authoritarianism with himself as an authoritarian President.
 Early in his campaign, President Trump indicated his dictatorial/
authoritarian intentions. On December 5, 2023, Fox News aired a town 
hall interview hosted by Sean Hannity with then-candidate, Donald 
Trump, where he was asked, ``Under no circumstances, you are promising 
America tonight, you would never abuse power as retribution against 
anybody,'' to which, Trump replied, ``Except for day one.'' In speaking 
to the audience, Trump, referring to Hannity, said, ``We love this guy. 
He says you're not going to be a dictator, are you? I said, no, no, no. 
Other than day one. We're closing the border and we're drilling, 
drilling, drilling. After that, I'm not a dictator. Okay?''
 Unfortunately, President Trump's authoritarianism did not end on 
day one, but instead continued through condoning the undermining of the 
judicial independence of the Federal judiciary, disregarding the 
separation of powers, violating the due process clause in the Fifth 
Amendment of the United States Constitution, denigrating Federal 
judges, condoning the flouting of orders of United States Federal 
Courts, including orders of the United States Supreme Court, in that:
 On Wednesday, April 16, 2025, James E. Boasberg, Chief Judge 
United States District Court for the District of Columbia found that 
probable cause existed to hold the Trump Administration defendants in 
contempt for a willful disregard for its order. The relevant part of 
the Memorandum Opinion stated as follows:

    (1) ``On the evening of Saturday, March 15, 2025, this 
 Court issued a written Temporary Restraining Order [TRO] 
 barring the Government from transferring certain individuals 
 into foreign custody pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act. At the 
 time the Order issued, those individuals were on planes being 
 flown overseas, having been spirited out of the United States 
 by the Government before they could vindicate their due-process 
 rights by contesting their removability in a Federal court, as 
 the law requires . . . Rather than comply with the Court's 
 Order, the Government continued the hurried removal operation. 
 Early on Sunday morning--hours after the Order issued--it 
 transferred two planeloads of passengers protected by the TRO 
 into a Salvadoran mega-prison''.

    (2) ``As this Opinion will detail, the Court ultimately 
 determines that the Government's actions on that day [March 16, 
 2025] demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient 
 for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find 
 the Government in criminal contempt. The Court does not reach 
 such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given 
 Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their 
 actions. None of their responses has been satisfactory.''

    (3) ``One might nonetheless ask how this inquiry into 
 compliance is able to proceed at all given that the Supreme 
 Court vacated the TRO after the events in question. That 
 Court's later determination that the TRO suffered from a legal 
 defect, however, does not excuse the Government's violation. 
 Instead, it is a foundational legal precept that every judicial 
 order `must be obeyed'--no matter how `erroneous' it `may be'--
 until a court reverses it.''

    (4) ``If a party chooses to disobey the order--rather than 
 wait for it to be reversed through the judicial process--such 
 disobedience is punishable as contempt, notwithstanding any 
 later-revealed deficiencies in the order . . . That 
 foundational `rule of law' answers not just how this compliance 
 inquiry can proceed, but why it must.''

    (5) ``The rule `reflects a belief that in the fair 
 administration of justice no man can be judge in his own case,' 
 no matter how `exalted his station' or `righteous his 
 motives.'''

    (6) ``The Constitution does not tolerate willful 
 disobedience of judicial orders--especially by officials of a 
 coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To 
 permit such officials to freely `annul the judgments of the 
 courts of the United States' would not just `destroy the rights 
 acquired under those judgments'; it would make `a solemn 
 mockery' of `the constitution itself.'''

    (7) ```So fatal a result must be deprecated by all.'''

    (8) ``For the foregoing reasons, the Court will find 
 probable cause that Defendants' actions constitute contempt. It 
 will provide them an opportunity to purge such contempt. If 
 they opt not to do so, the Court will proceed to identify the 
 contemnor

    (s) and refer the matter for prosecution. A separate 
 Order so stating will issue this day.''
 On March 18, 2025, President Trump published a statement 
denigrating and calling for the impeachment of a judge. In relevant 
part, the statement averred as follows:

    (1) ``This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker 
 and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, 
 was not elected President.''

    (2) ``This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges' I am 
 forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!''
 On March 18, 2025, NPR published an article related to the 
President of the United States of America, reporting on the President's 
call for a judge to be impeached. In relevant part, the article stated 
as follows:

    (1) ``Without naming James Boasberg, the chief judge of the 
 district court of Washington, DC, Trump said, `This judge, like 
 many of the Crooked Judges' I am forced to appear before, 
 should be IMPEACHED!!!' He also called Boasberg a `Radical Left 
 Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly 
 appointed by Barack Hussein Obama.'''

    (2) ``Reacting to the President's social media post, Chief 
 Justice John Roberts issued a written statement of his own: 
 `For more than two centuries it has been established that 
 impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreements 
 concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review 
 process exists for that purpose'.''
 On April 10, 2025, the Supreme Court issued opinion No. 24A949 
regarding the Trump Administration's request to vacate an injunction 
issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
 The court's unanimous judgment and reasoning in opinion No. 24A949 
(available for perusal), in relevant part, stated:

    (1) ``On March 15, 2025, the United States removed Kilmar 
 Armando Abrego Garcia from the United States to El Salvador, 
 where he is currently detained in the Center for Terrorism 
 Confinement

    (CECOT) . The United States acknowledges that Abrego 
 Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his 
 removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was 
 therefore illegal. The United States represents that the 
 removal to El Salvador was the result of an `administrative 
 error'.''

    (2) ``The [United States District Court for the District of 
 Maryland's] order properly requires the Government to 
 `facilitate' Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El 
 Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would 
 have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.''
 Further in the statement of Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice 
Kagan and Justice Jackson join, respecting the Court's disposition of 
the application averred that:

    (1) ``The United States Government arrested Kilmar Armando 
 Abrego Garcia in Maryland and flew him to a `terrorism 
 confinement center' in El Salvador, where he has been detained 
 for 26 days and counting. To this day, the Government has cited 
 no basis in law for Abrego Garcia's warrantless arrest, his 
 removal to El Salvador, or his confinement in a Salvadoran 
 prison. Nor could it. The Government remains bound by an 
 Immigration Judge's 2019 order expressly prohibiting Abrego 
 Garcia's removal to El Salvador because he faced a `clear 
 probability of future persecution' there and `demonstrated that 
 [El Salvador's] authorities were and would be unable or 
 unwilling to protect him.'''

    (2) ``The Government has not challenged the validity of 
 that order. Instead of hastening to correct its egregious 
 error, the Government dismissed it as an `oversight.'''

    (3) ``The Government's argument, moreover, implies that it 
 could deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. 
 citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so 
 before a court can intervene.''
 On April 14, 2025, days after the Supreme Court issued the above 
opinion No. 24A949, in a meeting with President Nayib Bukele of El 
Salvador, Attorney General Pamela Bondi, Secretary of State Marco 
Rubio, and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller--President 
Donald Trump was present and condoned their untruthful statements 
opposing the courts opinion related to Abrego Garcia's removal from the 
United States and the Supreme Court's order to facilitate his return. 
The meeting was recorded by C-SPAN. In the meeting, President Trump 
condoned and defended the untruths that undermine the Fifth Amendment 
mandate of due process prior to the removal of citizens and non-
citizens from the United States of America.
 C-SPAN reported the following: ``President Trump Meets with 
President of El Salvador: During an Oval Office meeting with Salvadoran 
President Nayib Bukele, President Donald Trump and members of his 
administration argued they were not required to return deported 
Salvadoran citizen Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States, in spite 
of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of facilitating his return. 
President Bukele himself said that he was not authorized to return Mr. 
Garcia, who was legally present in the U.S. before being deported in 
March. The Trump administration alleged that he was a member of the MS-
13 gang, but it previously admitted that the deportation was an 
`administrative error.'''
 On April 17, 2025, days after the White House meeting referenced 
above, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 
rendered an order exposing, with meticulous explication, the untruths 
utilized--by Attorney General Pamela Bondi, Secretary of State Marco 
Rubio, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, and condoned 
by President Donald Trump--to deny due process mandated in the Fifth 
Amendment of the Constitution.
 Wilkinson, Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Fourth Circuit, with whom Circuit Judges King and Thacker join, 
stated in relevant part as follows:

    (1) ``It is difficult in some cases to get to the very 
 heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all. 
 The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of 
 this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due 
 process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. 
 Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of 
 custody that there is nothing that can be done. This should be 
 shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of 
 liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold 
 dear. The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist 
 and a member of MS-13. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he 
 is still entitled to due process. If the government is 
 confident of its position, it should be assured that position 
 will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of 
 removal order . . . Moreover, the government has conceded that 
 Abrego Garcia was wrongly or `mistakenly' deported. Why then 
 should it not make what was wrong, right?''

    (2) ``The Supreme Court's decision does not, however, allow 
 the government to do essentially nothing. It requires the 
 government `to ``facilitate'' Abrego Garcia's release from 
 custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled 
 as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El 
 Salvador.'. . . `Facilitate' is an active verb. It requires 
 that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly 
 clear.''

    (3) ```Facilitation' does not permit the admittedly 
 erroneous deportation of an individual to the one country's 
 prisons that the withholding order forbids and, further, to do 
 so in disregard of a court order that the government not so 
 subtly spurns. `Facilitation' does not sanction the abrogation 
 of habeas corpus through the transfer of custody to foreign 
 detention centers in the manner attempted here. Allowing all 
 this would `facilitate' foreign detention more than it would 
 domestic return. It would reduce the rule of law to lawlessness 
 and tarnish the very values for which Americans of diverse 
 views and persuasions have always stood.''

    (4) ``If today the Executive claims the right to deport 
 without due process and in disregard of court orders, what 
 assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport 
 American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring 
 them home? And what assurance shall there be that the Executive 
 will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its 
 political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would 
 always be present, and the Executive's obligation to `take Care 
 that the Laws be faithfully executed' would lose its meaning.''

    (5) ``Today, both the United States and the El Salvadoran 
 governments disclaim any authority and/or responsibility to 
 return Abrego Garcia. See President Trump Participates in a 
 Bilateral Meeting with the President of El Salvador, WHITE 
 HOUSE (Apr. 14, 2025). We are told that neither government has 
 the power to act. The result will be to leave matters generally 
 and Abrego Garcia specifically in an interminable limbo without 
 recourse to law of any sort.''

    (6) ``Now the branches come too close to grinding 
 irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to 
 diminish both. This is a losing proposition all around. The 
 Judiciary will lose much from the constant intimations of its 
 illegitimacy, to which by dent of custom and detachment we can 
 only sparingly reply. The Executive will lose much from a 
 public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant 
 contagions. The Executive may succeed for a time in weakening 
 the courts, but over time history will script the tragic gap 
 between what was and all that might have been, and law in time 
 will sign its epitaph.''
 On April 29, 2025, in an interview with ABC News, while discussing 
the continued detention of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia in El Salvador, 
the interviewer said, ``You could get him back. There's a phone on this 
desk.'' President Donald John Trump replied, ``I could.''
 Notwithstanding all that has been presented above, the Trump 
Administration continues to flout the Supreme Court's April 10, 2025, 
order, ```to facilitate' Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El 
Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been 
had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.''
 On May 2, 2025, Reuters reported that U.S. Supreme Court Justice 
Ketanji Brown Jackson addressed President Donald Trump's attacks on the 
judiciary. In relevant part, the article stated as follows:

    (1) ``U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said 
 on Thursday attacks by Republican President Donald Trump and 
 his allies on judges were `not random' and seemed `designed to 
 intimidate the judiciary.'''

    (2) Particularly, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Jackson 
 remarked that, ``The attacks are not random. They seem designed 
 to intimidate those of us who serve in this critical 
 capacity.''

    (3) Justice Jackson added, ``The threats and harassment are 
 attacks on our democracy, on our system of government. And they 
 ultimately risk undermining our Constitution and the rule of 
 law.''
 On May 4, 2025, when asked, President Trump did not affirm his 
duty to uphold the Constitution, despite his presidential oath to, 
``faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and 
. . . to the best of [his] ability, preserve, protect and defend the 
Constitution of the United States.'' In an NBC News Meet the Press 
interview, when discussing the facilitation of Abrego Garcia's return, 
President Trump was asked, ``The Constitution says every person, 
citizens and non-citizens, deserve due process . . . Don't you need to 
uphold the Constitution of the United States as President?'' to which 
he responded by saying, ``I don't know.''
 In all this, President Donald John Trump gravely endangered the 
separation of powers within the government and its institutions. He 
threatened the integrity of the democratic system by condoning the 
undermining of the judicial independence of the Federal judiciary, 
violating the due process clause in the Fifth Amendment of the United 
States Constitution, denigrating Federal judges, ignoring the 
separation of powers, condoning the flouting of orders of United States 
Federal Courts (including orders of the United States Supreme Court)--
all of which have caused the devolution of democracy within the United 
States of America into authoritarianism with himself as an 
authoritarian President. He thereby betrayed his trust as President, to 
the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
 Wherefore, authoritarian President Donald John Trump, by such 
conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to democracy and 
the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a 
manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. 
Donald John Trump thus warrants impeachment, trial and removal from 
office, as he is unfit to be President.
 <all>