In Refusing to Impeach Trump, Congress Has Failed the American People and the World | Common Dreams

<h3>18 U.S.C. § 371 — Conspiracy to defraud the United States</h3><ul><li>The article alleges broad “lawless” executive conduct (war-powers/purse usurpation, obstruction of justice, civil-liberties violations), but it does not allege an agreement among identifiable actors to impair a federal function by deceitful or dishonest means.</li><li>Absent specific facts showing coordinated planning between officials and others, the narrative reads as political/constitutional critique rather than a chargeable conspiracy.</li></ul><h3>18 U.S.C. § 1505 — Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees</h3><ul><li>The piece asserts “continued obstructions of justice” and a “blatant cover-up” regarding the “Epstein Files” by Attorney General Pam Bondi, which, if supported by evidence, could implicate obstruction of congressional/investigative processes.</li><li>Key gaps: no described obstructive acts (e.g., document destruction, false statements, witness tampering), no identified pending proceeding details, and no linkage to specific intent; allegations are conclusory.</li></ul><h3>18 U.S.C. §§ 201(b), 208; 1346/1341/1343 — Bribery/conflict of interest/honest services fraud</h3><ul><li>The article does not allege payments, gifts, or personal enrichment tied to official action by Members of Congress or executive officials; it criticizes congressional inaction and executive overreach without a money-access-benefit transaction pattern.</li><li>Accordingly, the structural corruption (quid-pro-quo) indicators needed for bribery/honest-services theories are not present in the provided facts.</li></ul><h3>House Rules/Constitutional process issues — Noncriminal procedural/political conduct</h3><ul><li>Allegations focus on Congress tabling/withdrawing impeachment resolutions, leaving measures in committee, and political “road blocks” to impeachment—core legislative discretion that is generally noncriminal even if framed as dereliction.</li><li>Claims of unconstitutional war-making and policy harms (e.g., war declarations/strikes) are asserted, but the article does not supply specific statutory violations or evidentiary facts supporting criminal exposure.</li></ul><b>Conclusion:</b> The described conduct primarily reflects alleged abuses of power and political/procedural irregularities (including conclusory obstruction/cover-up claims) rather than a developed money-to-power transactional scheme; it warrants investigative scrutiny but is not charged on this record.