(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
 . . . . . . . . . .



Trump: He is Such a Peach [1]

['Chitown Kev', 'Belinda Ridgewood', 'Thom Hartmann', 'Darrell Lucus']

Date: 2026-08-05  

While going through the legislation Bills on house.gov, for this term, and scrolled by several titles alluring to the impeachment of Donald Trump. I narrowed the list to those built on the offenses POTUS enacted during this term. I believe for his first term he earned two impeachments, though he wasn’t pushed out of office for either. Impeached twice.

At the whirlwind speed he commits high crimes and frauds this term, and the level of creativity empowered while conjuring the next one, pausing for a moment and taking stock helps — helps reduce stress, helps exhale the victim mode, helps to keep it fresh, and saves from the narcissistic level of gas-lamping.

I did use the crimes I found in those Bills which hang in the dockets … waiting like a bullet in a gun to hit the floor. However, between the time I discovered them and sitting down to write this, Trump has found new and news worthy offenses I’ll add in as well.

There is much to consider and prepare, best to get started:

An introduced resolution is an accusation by its sponsor—not a judicial finding, criminal conviction, or conclusion adopted by the House. At the same time, impeachment does not require proof of an ordinary statutory crime. Historically, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” includes serious abuses of official power, corruption, violations of the public trust, and conduct fundamentally incompatible with the presidency.

The five resolutions I found through August 5, 2026, are:

Several articles overlap. I have preserved each formal article below, while explaining where the accusation appears strong, where it remains contested, and where the resolution overstates its evidence.

H.Res.353 — introduced by Rep. Shri Thanedar

1. Obstruction of justice, denial of due process, and failure to execute the laws

This article brings together several allegations:

That Trump’s Justice Department misled federal courts.

That the criminal case against New York Mayor Eric Adams was dismissed as part of a political immigration bargain.

That prosecutors and officials connected with January 6 cases were purged.

That the administration disregarded court orders involving Alien Enemies Act deportations.

That it failed to correct the wrongful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

That inspectors general and Merit Systems Protection Board officials were unlawfully removed.

That personal data was improperly exposed through DOGE-related access.

The Abrego Garcia matter is the strongest documented component. The Supreme Court record states that the government acknowledged his removal to El Salvador violated a withholding-of-removal order and was therefore illegal. The Court required the government to facilitate his release and treat the case as though he had not been improperly removed.

Why this may be impeachable: A president who knowingly orders subordinates to defy courts, fabricates compliance, or refuses to remedy an acknowledged illegal deportation would be attacking both due process and the judiciary’s constitutional authority.

What remains to be proved: The article groups many separate events together. For impeachment against Trump personally, an inquiry would need evidence of his knowledge, instructions, approval or deliberate tolerance of the noncompliance—not merely misconduct somewhere within the executive branch.

2. Usurpation of Congress’s spending power

This article alleges that Trump attempted to:

Freeze or “impound” money Congress had already appropriated.

Dismantle USAID, the Department of Education and other congressionally established programs without legislation.

Use DOGE to prevent authorized expenditures.

Eliminate federal positions and programs in ways that effectively repealed laws without congressional action.

The January 2025 Office of Management and Budget memorandum directed agencies to pause broad categories of federal financial assistance, although it included the qualification “to the extent permissible under applicable law.”

This is a potentially strong separation-of-powers article. The Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power of the purse. The Impoundment Control Act also restricts presidential refusal to spend appropriated funds. During this term, the Government Accountability Office has found violations involving several programs, including NIH funding, Head Start, the Institute of Museum and Library Services and FEMA funds.

The essential distinction is:

Trump may recommend that Congress abolish or reduce a program.

He ordinarily may not treat an existing appropriation or statutory agency as though Congress never enacted it.

A deliberate, systematic effort to nullify Congress’s enacted laws would fit comfortably within historical understandings of impeachable abuse of power.

3. Abuse of trade authority and international aggression

This article attacks Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs and his statements concerning Canada, Mexico, Greenland, Panama and Gaza. It alleges that he used trade powers recklessly, harmed the economy and threatened territorial aggression or annexation.

This is one of the weaker articles as drafted.

Tariffs may exceed delegated statutory power. Threatening another country may be dangerous or diplomatically destructive. But bad trade policy, economic damage and inflammatory rhetoric are not automatically impeachable. The resolution would need to establish something more specific—for example:

Deliberate use of a fabricated emergency to evade Congress.

Personal enrichment through advance knowledge of tariff decisions.

Use of military threats contrary to treaties or statutes.

Defiance of a final judicial determination that the tariffs were unlawful.

Without that additional element, much of this article resembles a severe policy disagreement rather than a clearly framed constitutional offense.

4. Retaliation against protected speech and political opposition

The resolution alleges that Trump used government authority against law firms, journalists, prosecutors and political opponents by:

Suspending security clearances.

Restricting access to federal buildings.

Threatening government contracts.

Ordering investigations.

Pressuring law firms into providing hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal work.

Excluding the Associated Press over its refusal to adopt the term “Gulf of America.”

Removing or punishing officials associated with investigations of Trump.

This is a substantial impeachment theory. The president may criticize a newspaper or law firm. He may not generally use contracts, clearances, prosecutions or regulatory authority as punishment for protected viewpoints.

The law-firm orders are particularly serious because they appear to combine an official governmental penalty with an invitation to negotiate relief by supplying valuable legal services. Whether that meets the criminal definitions of bribery or extortion would require evidence of intent and exchange. But impeachment reaches corrupt or coercive uses of presidential authority even where criminal prosecution would be uncertain.

5. Creation of an unlawful office through DOGE and Elon Musk

This article alleges that Trump created DOGE without proper statutory authority and permitted Elon Musk to exercise powers belonging to a Senate-confirmed “principal officer.” It also connects DOGE activity to personnel decisions, access to protected information, spending suspensions and interference with statutory agencies.

This article is legally interesting but incompletely developed.

A president may create advisory bodies and employ White House advisers. The constitutional problem arises when an adviser who has not been appointed and confirmed exercises independent governmental authority—ordering agencies, controlling expenditures, firing protected employees or making final decisions affecting legal rights.

Musk’s political influence alone would not establish the offense. The critical evidence would be documents and testimony showing what legal authority he actually exercised and whether agency officials understood his instructions as binding governmental orders.

6. Bribery, corruption and personal enrichment

The article accuses Trump of:

Using cryptocurrency ventures and tokens as channels for payments from people seeking influence.

Profiting from businesses while exercising presidential power.

Receiving favorable settlements from corporations facing government regulation.

Extracting free legal services from law firms.

Benefiting from foreign or domestic governmental patronage.

Refusing meaningful separation from businesses controlled by himself or his family.

Corruption is among the clearest historical grounds for impeachment. The Constitution expressly names bribery, while the broader impeachment power also reaches self-enrichment and the sale of official influence.

However, H.Res.353 overreaches when it effectively declares the allegations proved “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The resolution does not supply a transaction-by-transaction evidentiary record demonstrating:

Who paid or transferred value. What official action the payer wanted. What Trump or his representatives promised. Whether the official action followed. Whether Trump personally understood the exchange.

This could become one of the strongest impeachment categories, but it requires financial records, communications and witness testimony—not merely the existence of unusual payments or profitable businesses.

7. Tyranny

The final article characterizes Trump’s overall conduct as a campaign to establish arbitrary presidential power. It cites attacks on due process, judges, Congress, state governments, birthright citizenship and constitutional term limits.

As a description of an alleged pattern, this article has value. As a standalone article, it is too broad.

“Tyranny” is not self-defining. A serious impeachment article should identify the particular act, constitutional power abused, evidence of presidential responsibility and resulting injury. The individual conduct described elsewhere—defying courts, withholding appropriations or retaliating against opponents—is more persuasive than a catchall declaration that Trump is tyrannical.

H.Res.415 — introduced by Rep. Al Green

8. Devolving American democracy into authoritarianism by defying courts

This resolution concentrates on Trump’s conflict with the federal judiciary, particularly:

The administration’s removal of people under the Alien Enemies Act.

Judge James Boasberg’s conclusion that there was probable cause to consider whether officials had acted in willful contempt.

Trump’s demand that Boasberg be impeached.

The Abrego Garcia deportation.

Trump’s statements indicating that he possessed the power to secure Abrego Garcia’s return.

This is probably the strongest single article among the five resolutions because it focuses upon identifiable court orders, identifiable executive actions and presidential statements.

The central impeachment issue is not whether Trump disliked the judges or disagreed with their rulings. Presidents may appeal adverse decisions and criticize judicial reasoning. The constitutional offense would be knowingly treating judicial orders as optional and using executive custody or foreign detention arrangements to place people beyond the courts’ practical reach.

The unresolved factual question remains personal responsibility: Did Trump direct resistance, knowingly approve it, or merely make political statements while lawyers and agencies handled the litigation?

H.Res.537 — introduced by Rep. Al Green

9. Usurpation of Congress’s war power through attacks on Iran

The resolution alleges that Trump ordered the June 21, 2025 attacks on the Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan nuclear facilities without:

A congressional declaration of war.

Specific statutory authorization.

A genuinely imminent attack requiring immediate presidential action.

Adequate consultation and reporting to Congress.

This is a serious but constitutionally contested article.

Congress possesses the power to declare war. Presidents nevertheless have long claimed Article II authority to conduct limited military operations to protect national interests, forces or allies. That historical practice does not eliminate Congress’s authority, but it makes the boundary difficult to define.

The impeachment case becomes stronger when a president:

Begins sustained hostilities rather than a brief defensive operation.

Cannot identify an imminent threat.

Refuses to comply with the War Powers Resolution.

Continues military action after Congress orders termination.

Uses military force to accomplish a policy Congress has rejected.



The House tabled H.Res.537 by a vote of 344–79, meaning it declined to proceed with the article. That vote was not a factual determination that the attack was constitutional.

H.Res.939 — introduced by Rep. Al Green

10. Calling for the execution of members of Congress

This article concerns six Democratic lawmakers with military or intelligence backgrounds who released a video reminding service members that they must refuse unlawful orders. Trump responded by describing their conduct as “seditious,” stating it was “punishable by DEATH,” and reposting language calling for them to be hanged.

This is a highly specific and grave accusation.

A criminal incitement prosecution would require satisfaction of demanding First Amendment standards. Impeachment does not require that same criminal showing. The relevant question is whether a president’s public demand for death or hanging of legislators constitutes:

Intimidation of Congress.

Retaliation for protected political speech.

Encouragement of violence by supporters.

An abuse of the authority and influence of the presidency.

Conduct fundamentally incompatible with the obligation to preserve representative government.

Trump’s likely defense would be that the comments were political exaggeration, not literal instructions. That defense affects criminal liability but does not erase the institutional danger of a president publicly endorsing execution rhetoric against identifiable legislators.

11. Intimidating federal judges

The second article cites repeated attacks upon judges who ruled against Trump, demands for their impeachment, denunciations of their legitimacy and an increase in threats directed against members of the judiciary.

Presidents have a right to criticize judicial decisions. The impeachment line would be crossed where criticism becomes an official campaign to frighten judges, encourage threats, retaliate through government power or undermine compliance with their rulings.

This article presents a plausible pattern-of-abuse case, but it needs more evidence concerning causation and intent. An increase in threats following presidential attacks is relevant, but it does not alone prove that Trump intended the threats or directed the people making them.

The House tabled H.Res.939 by 237–140, with 47 members voting present. Again, tabling ended consideration; it did not adjudicate the underlying allegations.

H.Res.1155 — introduced by Rep. John Larson

This is the newest and broadest resolution. Its thirteen articles were drafted with the participation of Ralph Nader and constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein.

12. War powers, “murder” and “piracy”

The resolution accuses Trump of unauthorized military violence involving:

Strikes against suspected drug-trafficking vessels.

A reported second strike that killed survivors of an initial attack.

Military action or threats involving Venezuela.

Seizure or control of Venezuelan oil.

Operations involving Iran, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Nigeria and Gaza.

Threats concerning Panama, Colombia, Cuba and Greenland.

Reporting supports that a controversial second strike occurred and that Congress sought the complete video and legal justification. Lawmakers were subsequently shown video of the operation, although the unedited recording was not publicly released.

The underlying impeachment concern—presidential use of lethal force without legal authorization—is substantial.

But the resolution’s labels of “murder,” “war crimes” and “piracy” are legal conclusions that the document does not prove. Each operation would have to be evaluated separately under domestic law, the law of armed conflict, maritime law and the factual circumstances of the target. Combining numerous countries and operations into one article sacrifices precision.

13. Militarization of domestic law enforcement

This article alleges that Trump improperly deployed or attempted to deploy National Guard or military forces in Los Angeles, Chicago, Portland, Washington and other cities to suppress protest and intimidate political opposition.

There is meaningful judicial support for questioning at least some deployments. In litigation concerning Illinois, the Supreme Court declined to stay an order restricting the deployment and stated that the government had not shown the necessary statutory authority. The Court also noted the absence of an identified legal source allowing the military to execute ordinary laws in Illinois.

The constitutional concern is powerful: using military personnel as a domestic presidential police force threatens federalism, civilian government and the Posse Comitatus tradition.

The harder allegation is motive. A court may find that a deployment lacked statutory authority without finding that Trump’s specific purpose was to terrorize or silence residents. Washington, D.C., also presents different legal questions because the president has greater authority over its National Guard.

14. Unconstitutional detention and deportation

This article alleges that the administration:

Detained and removed people without meaningful hearings.

Used the Alien Enemies Act outside its lawful wartime context.

Transferred prisoners to El Salvador to place them beyond American judicial protection.

Selected people based on ethnicity, nationality or political views.

Defied orders requiring due process or return.

The wrongful removal of Abrego Garcia provides a documented example of illegal government action. The Supreme Court noted the government’s acknowledgment that the removal violated an existing legal order.

This is therefore a strong due-process article in principle. Its broader assertions—that all or many selections were racially or politically motivated—would require individual records, criteria, communications and testimony.

15. Retaliation against protected speech and association

This article overlaps with Article IV of H.Res.353. It alleges that Trump used firings, investigations, executive orders and federal funding authority to punish:

FBI and Justice Department employees.

Educators and educational institutions.

Lawyers.

Political opponents.

People expressing views disfavored by the administration.

The strongest portion concerns retaliatory government action against identifiable individuals because of protected speech, prior investigations or political affiliation.

The weakest portion treats disagreement over federal education policy as though it were automatically an impeachable offense. Presidents have considerable authority to direct executive policy. The constitutional violation occurs when that authority becomes a weapon against protected expression or is used to nullify statutory rights.

16. Abuse of the pardon power

This article cites:

The sweeping January 6 pardons and commutations.

Pardons granted to political supporters, donors or people with access to Trump.

The pardon of former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández.

The possibility of promises of pardons encouraging future illegality.

Trump’s January 20, 2025 proclamation commuted the sentences of named January 6 defendants and granted full pardons to nearly all others convicted of related offenses.

The pardon power is extremely broad. A pardon may be constitutionally valid yet still constitute an impeachable abuse if it is issued:

In exchange for money.

To conceal the president’s own misconduct.

To obstruct an investigation.

To reward participation in an unlawful presidential scheme.

Pursuant to an advance promise intended to encourage future crimes.

The January 6 pardons are ethically and institutionally consequential, particularly where recipients assaulted officers. But their breadth or offensiveness alone does not prove a corrupt exchange. The resolution is weakest when it speculates about pardons for hypothetical future violence.

17. Crippling and defunding congressionally established protections

This article alleges that Trump attempted to disable consumer, labor, environmental and social-welfare protections through:

Mass dismissals.

Agency closures.

Refusal to release appropriated money.

Suspension of legally required functions.

Administrative actions that effectively repealed statutes.

Some of this is ordinary ideological conflict over regulation. A president may pursue deregulation where statutes give the executive discretion.

The potentially impeachable component is different: an intentional refusal to administer laws that remain in force. The president cannot turn “I oppose this program” into “this program legally no longer exists.” When backed by GAO findings or judicial orders establishing unlawful impoundment, the article becomes considerably stronger.

18. Usurpation of the power of the purse

This article focuses more specifically on financial control. It alleges:

The administration did establish a system concerning Venezuelan oil revenue, and congressional investigators have raised questions involving at least hundreds of millions of dollars.

This article contains a strong constitutional core: neither refusal to spend nor expenditure outside congressional appropriations may become a substitute for legislation.

The ballroom and Venezuelan-oil allegations need more legal and factual development. Privately financing a government structure raises serious gift, procurement and influence concerns, but it is not automatically unconstitutional. The Venezuelan revenue arrangement requires a clear accounting of ownership, statutory authority, custody and permitted uses.

19. Contempt of Congress and secret government

The resolution alleges that the administration improperly withheld:

Video and records concerning the boat strikes.

Epstein-related records.

Other information necessary for congressional oversight.

This is among the weakest articles as written.

Lawmakers were eventually shown the strike video, although it was not released publicly. That undercuts a broad claim that Congress was categorically denied access.

A valid contempt or obstruction article should identify:

The precise committee request or subpoena.

The official responsible for responding.

The information withheld.

The legal privilege asserted.

Why that privilege was invalid.

Trump’s role in ordering noncompliance.

Failure to release information publicly is not necessarily contempt of Congress. The resolution also asserts that Epstein material was misclassified to conceal wrongdoing without supplying evidence proving that purpose.

20. Perverting law enforcement against enemies and for allies

This article alleges politically motivated use of federal law enforcement against people including:

James Comey.

New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Senator Adam Schiff.

Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

Jerome Powell.

John Brennan.

It also cites the dismissal of the Eric Adams prosecution as an example of using leniency to obtain political cooperation.

This is a classic impeachment category. Richard Nixon’s proposed articles included misuse of federal agencies against political opponents. A president who converts the Justice Department into personal enforcement machinery commits an abuse even if each order is disguised as an ordinary investigation.

But the resolution mainly provides a list of alleged targets. A developed case would need to establish for each:

Trump’s direction or intervention. Evidence of retaliatory or corrupt motive. Departure from normal investigative standards. Pressure placed on prosecutors or investigators. Preferential treatment for allies under comparable circumstances.

The theory is strong; the supporting presentation in the resolution is thin.

21. Suspending and dispensing with the laws

The article alleges that Trump behaved as though he possessed a royal power to disregard statutes. Its most concrete example is the firing of inspectors general without the legally required advance notice and substantive explanation to Congress. It also incorporates broader refusals to enforce statutes and appropriations.

The inspector-general issue offers a specific statutory predicate. The applicable law requires advance congressional notification accompanied by a substantive rationale. Contemporary White House questioning centered on whether the required 30-day notice had been supplied.

An isolated procedural violation might not warrant removal. A deliberate pattern of firing independent watchdogs while refusing statutory safeguards could, however, demonstrate obstruction of oversight and an intention to place the president beyond lawful supervision.

The resolution’s rhetoric that Trump treated the entire United States Code as merely advisory is too sweeping. The specific acts are more useful than that characterization.

22. Attempting to eliminate birthright citizenship

This article concerns Trump’s January 20, 2025 executive order seeking to restrict citizenship for certain children born in the United States. The resolution argues that the order conflicts with the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

in shadow he leads open

Issuing an unconstitutional executive order is not automatically impeachable. Presidents frequently test disputed constitutional questions and sometimes lose in court.

The case becomes substantially stronger if evidence shows that Trump:

Knew the order plainly contradicted controlling constitutional law.

Intended to deny citizenship before courts could act.

Ordered officials to disregard injunctions.

Continued enforcing it after a final binding judgment.

The constitutional merits, the administration’s professed legal theory and its compliance with judicial decisions must therefore be separated.

23. Fabricated emergency and terrorist-designation powers

This article attacks declarations involving:

An energy emergency.

A claimed border “invasion.”

Designation of cartels or other organizations as foreign terrorist organizations.

Use of those declarations to obtain powers that Congress had not otherwise granted.

This is another mixed article.

Congress has delegated broad emergency and designation authorities to presidents. A court or Congress may disagree with Trump’s factual assessment without establishing an impeachable offense.

The impeachment issue would be whether he knowingly fabricated the necessary factual predicate and then used the declaration to:

Spend money Congress withheld.

Suspend statutory rights.

Wage war without authorization.

Seize property without due process.

Deploy military forces where ordinary law did not permit it.

The resolution alleges pretext but does not fully demonstrate it.

24. Foreign and domestic emoluments

The final article alleges that Trump retained businesses capable of receiving money or valuable patronage from:

Foreign governments.

State or federal instrumentalities.

Regulated businesses.

Individuals seeking official action.

It contends that these payments created unconstitutional emoluments and opportunities for bribery or favoritism.

This is constitutionally serious. The Foreign Emoluments Clause was designed to prevent presidents and other federal officers from becoming financially dependent upon foreign powers. The Domestic Emoluments Clause restricts the president from receiving additional benefits from federal or state governments beyond his fixed compensation.

The strongest case would identify each government-related payment, the Trump business receiving it, Trump’s financial interest and any related official action. The existence of continuing commercial interests creates exposure and conflicts. It does not, by itself, prove that each transaction was an unconstitutional emolument or corrupt bargain.

I have come all this way, finishing what has been setup and tamped into the barrels ready to fire — and it is far more than I first estimated. What I have not done is breach New Business. These opportunities would include his conduct during the war with Iran — beginning with his unprovoked attack on Iran which started the struggle. His Truth Social Early Insider Tips Subscription service — which I’m sure only provided four or five actionable offenses. The last (for now) would fall into

Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, and knowing that he messed up by bringing in his contractor/wise guy friend and paying him to paint the bottom of it– which is not the offense. The offense was to no wish to admit it, and when an innocent man was accused of vandalism — knowing full well he was innocent — had him arrested, and arraigned and heading to court with the same care drunks were pressed into Navy service during the days of our independence. To crown that move, when his attorney discovered the man was not guilty, and let him go, his fury rose to biblical wrath.

I have to wonder — why become president? It is obviously a horrible match for him. The tailoring was suspect his first term in office. And it blew up at the end. On the surface it is as if every action he wishes to take, is illegal or immoral — nauseating is an option as well. Either way, he is not getting the fuzzies he was certain would be his reward.

Funny thing that — it is well known that he is running the Project 2025 play book keeping his patterns tight. In fact he has covered about 53% of the objectives at this point in his term.

Could be the grifters of the Heritage Foundation caught him with a hook, and now he’s just a fish on a line doing a dance far from home.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2026/8/5/800080341/community/trump-he-is-such-a-peach/

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/