{
  "legislationId": "119_HRES_1211",
  "lastUpdate": "2026-04-24T11:15:23.135Z",
  "history": [
    {
      "timestamp": "2026-04-24T11:15:23.135Z",
      "source_url": "https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hres1211/BILLS-119hres1211ih.htm",
      "model": "gemini-flash-lite-latest",
      "prompt_sent": "\nROLE: Fact Checker.\nZADANIE: Porównaj SOURCE (oryginał) i SUMMARY (streszczenie przygotowane przez inne AI).\n\nTwoim celem jest wykrycie \"ZMYŚLONYCH KONKRETÓW\" (Fabricated Entities) w SUMMARY.\n\nSOURCE:\n[Congressional Bills 119th Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] [H. Res. 1211 Introduced in House (IH)] <DOC> 119th CONGRESS 2d Session H. RES. 1211 Expunging the December 18, 2019, and January 13, 2021, Impeachments of President Donald Trump. _______________________________________________________________________ IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES April 23, 2026 Mr. Issa (for himself, Ms. Tenney, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Fry, Mr. Alford, Mr. Burchett, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Taylor, Ms. Hageman, Mr. Allen, Mr. McCormick, Mr. Rulli, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. Collins, Mr. Grothman, Mr. Patronis, Mr. Mann, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Rose, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Rouzer, Mrs. Harshbarger, and Mr. Jackson of Texas) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary _______________________________________________________________________ RESOLUTION Expunging the December 18, 2019, and January 13, 2021, Impeachments of President Donald Trump. Whereas President Trump was wrongfully accused of misconduct in House Resolution 755, 116th Congress, Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors, as demonstrated by the newly declassified evidence that shows the ``anonymous whistleblower'', whose complaint the Democrats based their case on, had no firsthand knowledge of the events at hand and was politically biased against President Trump; Whereas the ``anonymous whistleblower'' told Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) investigators the whistleblower did not have ``direct knowledge'' of President Trump's July 2019 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that served as the basis for the 2019 impeachment; Whereas ICIG investigators discovered the ``anonymous whistleblower'' displayed ``indicia of an arguable political bias'' against President Trump; Whereas according to interviews conducted by the ICIG, another biased intelligence community official (``Witness 2'') helped the ``anonymous whistleblower'' craft the complaint against President Trump; Whereas Witness 2 coauthored the now-debunked 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that falsely alleged Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election for the purpose of helping President Trump; Whereas Witness 2 previously worked alongside disgraced former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent Peter Strzok who was removed from the FBI after leading politically biased investigations against the Trump campaign and sending text messages in which he made numerous derogatory remarks about President Trump and conservative Americans and expressed a desire to use his position at the FBI to prevent President Trump from winning the 2016 election; Whereas the then-Democrat chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence fabricated evidence of President Trump's phone conversation with President Zelensky in a public hearing; Whereas the then-Democrat chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence falsely stated that he did not know the identity of the ``anonymous whistleblower'', despite evidence that the whistleblower had met privately with his staff; Whereas the then-Democrat chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence refused to allow the ``anonymous whistleblower'' to testify during the impeachment proceedings, depriving Members the ability to assess the motivation and credibility of the ``anonymous whistleblower's'' allegations; Whereas President Trump was denied the right to confront his accusers with the exculpatory evidence contained in the newly declassified documents; Whereas, on January 13, 2021, the House of Representatives passed H. Res. 24, 117th Congress, Agreeing to Article I of the Resolution Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high Crimes and Misdemeanors, by a vote of 232 Yeas, 197 Nays, and 4 Not Voting; Whereas the consideration of the Resolution by the House of Representatives failed to follow any meaningful legislative process and denied any semblance of due process; Whereas not a single evidentiary hearing on the Resolution was held, no witnesses were heard, and no process or opportunity to respond was provided to President Trump; Whereas no Members of Congress were provided an opportunity to review or amend the Resolution before it came before the full House of Representatives for consideration; Whereas Democrats on the House Committee on the Judiciary released a ``staff'' report, but did not consider, debate, vote on, or issue an official Committee Report, via regular order, for H. Res. 24; Whereas Democrats on the Committee on the Judiciary, by departing from regular order, prevented the minority from presenting dissenting views on the Resolution; Whereas House Democrats passed H. Res. 24 only 2 days after it was introduced, without factfinding or meaningful deliberation; Whereas House Democrats' snap impeachment ran contrary to fundamental principles of due process; Whereas unsurprisingly, 31 days passed before the Senate held a vote and refused to convict President Trump, 23 days after he had left office; and Whereas as further indication of the partisan political motivations behind the Resolution, once the Article of Impeachment was passed by the House of Representatives and transmitted to the Senate, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court refused to serve as the presiding officer for the trial, as required by section 3 of article I of the Constitution, and instead the Senate President pro tempore, Senator Pat Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, served as the presiding officer, perfecting the entirety of the process as nothing more than an unconstitutional exercise in futility, moot, and fantastical political theater: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That -- (1) the December 18, 2019, impeachment of President Donald John Trump is expunged, as if such Articles had never passed the full House of Representatives; and (2) the January 13, 2021, impeachment of President Donald John Trump is expunged, as if such Article had never passed the full House of Representatives. <all>\n\nSUMMARY TO EVALUATE:\nTitle: Resolution to Expunge the 2019 and 2021 Impeachments of Donald Trump.\nSummary: This resolution seeks to formally remove the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of Donald Trump from the official House records. It claims the original processes were politically biased and lacked proper legal due process.\nKey Points: Expunges the December 18, 2019, impeachment articles as if they never passed., Expunges the January 13, 2021, impeachment article as if it never passed., Argues that the first impeachment relied on biased whistleblower testimony and fabricated evidence., Claims the second impeachment lacked evidentiary hearings, witnesses, and meaningful deliberation.\n\nZASADY OCENY:\n1. Sprawdź wszystkie LICZBY, DATY i KWOTY w SUMMARY. Jeśli którejś brakuje w SOURCE -> is_valid: false.\n2. Sprawdź wszystkie NAZWISKA, ORGANIZACJE i MIEJSCA w SUMMARY. Jeśli którejś brakuje w SOURCE -> is_valid: false.\n3. Sprawdź wszystkie konkretne DZIAŁANIA PRAWNE . Jeśli tego mechanizmu nie ma w SOURCE -> is_valid: false.\n\nWAŻNE: Abstrakcyjne pojęcia (np. \"transparentność\", \"zaufanie\") są dozwolone jako wnioski.\n\nOUTPUT (JSON):\n{\n  \"is_valid\": true/false,\n  \"issue\": \"fabricated_entity\" / \"contradiction\" / \"none\"\n}\n\nWYMAGANIA FORMATOWANIA:\n1. Odpowiedz WYŁĄCZNIE surowym obiektem JSON.\n2. NIE używaj bloków kodu Markdown.\n3. NIE dodawaj żadnych wstępów ani wyjaśnień przed ani po JSONie.\n4. JSON musi być poprawny i gotowy do parsowania.\n\n",
      "ai_response_raw": "{\n  \"is_valid\": true,\n  \"issue\": \"none\"\n}"
    },
    {
      "timestamp": "2026-04-24T11:11:16.535Z",
      "source_url": "https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hres1211/BILLS-119hres1211ih.htm",
      "model": "gemini-flash-latest",
      "prompt_sent": "\nJesteś ekspertem od prawa Stanów Zjednoczonych, który ma za zadanie analizować dokumenty ustaw, uchwał oraz innych dokumentów legislacyjnych, a następnie przygotowywać z nich informacje w przystępny sposób dla obywateli. Twoim celem jest przedstawienie informacji tak, aby obywatele mogli sami ocenić wpływ legislacji na ich życie, nawet bez posiadania specjalistycznej wiedzy legislacyjnej. Skup się na faktach i obiektywnych skutkach wprowadzanych zmian, unikając wartościowania i osobistych opinii. Wszelki żargon prawny jest zabroniony. Prezentuj informacje w jasny, zwięzły i angażujący sposób, tak aby były zrozumiałe dla osoby bez wykształcenia prawniczego. Unikaj długich, złożonych zdań. Zamiast pisać \"projekt ma na celu nowelizację kodeksu podatkowego...\", napisz \"Zmiany w podatkach: nowe ulgi i obowiązki dla...\". Kontynuuj swoją pracę, dopóki nie rozwiążesz swojego zadania. Jeśli nie masz pewności co do generowanej treści, przeanalizuj dokument ponownie – nie zgaduj. Rozplanuj dobrze swoje zadanie przed przystąpieniem do niego. W podsumowaniu i kluczowych punktach, jeśli to możliwe i uzasadnione, podkreśl, jakie konkretne korzyści lub skutki (pozytywne lub negatywne) wprowadza ustawa dla życia codziennego obywateli, ich praw i obowiązków, finansów osobistych, bezpieczeństwa i innych ważnych kwestii (np. kategorycznych zakazów i nakazów czy najważniejszych konkretnych alokacji finansowych i terytorialnych).\n\nTwoja odpowiedź MUSI być w formacie JSON - i zawierać następujące klucze.\nZanim zwrócisz odpowiedź, dokładnie zweryfikuj, czy cała struktura JSON jest w 100% poprawna, włącznie ze wszystkimi przecinkami, nawiasami klamrowymi, kwadratowymi oraz cudzysłowami. Błędny JSON jest nieakceptowalny i uniemożliwi przetworzenie Twojej pracy.\n\nPrzeanalizuj dokładnie poniższy tekst dokumentu prawnego. To jest treść, na podstawie której masz wygenerować podsumowanie i kluczowe punkty:\n--- POCZĄTEK DOKUMENTU ---\n[Congressional Bills 119th Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] [H. Res. 1211 Introduced in House (IH)] <DOC> 119th CONGRESS 2d Session H. RES. 1211 Expunging the December 18, 2019, and January 13, 2021, Impeachments of President Donald Trump. _______________________________________________________________________ IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES April 23, 2026 Mr. Issa (for himself, Ms. Tenney, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Fry, Mr. Alford, Mr. Burchett, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Taylor, Ms. Hageman, Mr. Allen, Mr. McCormick, Mr. Rulli, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. Collins, Mr. Grothman, Mr. Patronis, Mr. Mann, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Rose, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Rouzer, Mrs. Harshbarger, and Mr. Jackson of Texas) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary _______________________________________________________________________ RESOLUTION Expunging the December 18, 2019, and January 13, 2021, Impeachments of President Donald Trump. Whereas President Trump was wrongfully accused of misconduct in House Resolution 755, 116th Congress, Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors, as demonstrated by the newly declassified evidence that shows the ``anonymous whistleblower'', whose complaint the Democrats based their case on, had no firsthand knowledge of the events at hand and was politically biased against President Trump; Whereas the ``anonymous whistleblower'' told Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) investigators the whistleblower did not have ``direct knowledge'' of President Trump's July 2019 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that served as the basis for the 2019 impeachment; Whereas ICIG investigators discovered the ``anonymous whistleblower'' displayed ``indicia of an arguable political bias'' against President Trump; Whereas according to interviews conducted by the ICIG, another biased intelligence community official (``Witness 2'') helped the ``anonymous whistleblower'' craft the complaint against President Trump; Whereas Witness 2 coauthored the now-debunked 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that falsely alleged Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election for the purpose of helping President Trump; Whereas Witness 2 previously worked alongside disgraced former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent Peter Strzok who was removed from the FBI after leading politically biased investigations against the Trump campaign and sending text messages in which he made numerous derogatory remarks about President Trump and conservative Americans and expressed a desire to use his position at the FBI to prevent President Trump from winning the 2016 election; Whereas the then-Democrat chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence fabricated evidence of President Trump's phone conversation with President Zelensky in a public hearing; Whereas the then-Democrat chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence falsely stated that he did not know the identity of the ``anonymous whistleblower'', despite evidence that the whistleblower had met privately with his staff; Whereas the then-Democrat chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence refused to allow the ``anonymous whistleblower'' to testify during the impeachment proceedings, depriving Members the ability to assess the motivation and credibility of the ``anonymous whistleblower's'' allegations; Whereas President Trump was denied the right to confront his accusers with the exculpatory evidence contained in the newly declassified documents; Whereas, on January 13, 2021, the House of Representatives passed H. Res. 24, 117th Congress, Agreeing to Article I of the Resolution Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high Crimes and Misdemeanors, by a vote of 232 Yeas, 197 Nays, and 4 Not Voting; Whereas the consideration of the Resolution by the House of Representatives failed to follow any meaningful legislative process and denied any semblance of due process; Whereas not a single evidentiary hearing on the Resolution was held, no witnesses were heard, and no process or opportunity to respond was provided to President Trump; Whereas no Members of Congress were provided an opportunity to review or amend the Resolution before it came before the full House of Representatives for consideration; Whereas Democrats on the House Committee on the Judiciary released a ``staff'' report, but did not consider, debate, vote on, or issue an official Committee Report, via regular order, for H. Res. 24; Whereas Democrats on the Committee on the Judiciary, by departing from regular order, prevented the minority from presenting dissenting views on the Resolution; Whereas House Democrats passed H. Res. 24 only 2 days after it was introduced, without factfinding or meaningful deliberation; Whereas House Democrats' snap impeachment ran contrary to fundamental principles of due process; Whereas unsurprisingly, 31 days passed before the Senate held a vote and refused to convict President Trump, 23 days after he had left office; and Whereas as further indication of the partisan political motivations behind the Resolution, once the Article of Impeachment was passed by the House of Representatives and transmitted to the Senate, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court refused to serve as the presiding officer for the trial, as required by section 3 of article I of the Constitution, and instead the Senate President pro tempore, Senator Pat Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, served as the presiding officer, perfecting the entirety of the process as nothing more than an unconstitutional exercise in futility, moot, and fantastical political theater: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That -- (1) the December 18, 2019, impeachment of President Donald John Trump is expunged, as if such Articles had never passed the full House of Representatives; and (2) the January 13, 2021, impeachment of President Donald John Trump is expunged, as if such Article had never passed the full House of Representatives. <all>\n--- KONIEC DOKUMENTU ---\n\nPAMIĘTAJ: Twoja odpowiedź MUSI być wyłącznie poprawnym obiektem JSON. Nie dodawaj żadnych dodatkowych znaków, komentarzy ani tekstu przed znacznikiem '{' ani po znaczniku '}'. Cała odpowiedź musi być parsowalna jako JSON.\nNa podstawie POWYŻSZEGO dokumentu, wypełnij poniższą strukturę JSON:\nOto struktura JSON, której oczekuję (wypełnij ją treścią):\n{\n  \"pl_ai_title\": \"Nowy, krótki tytuł dla aktu prawnego po polsku, oddający sedno wprowadzanych zmian (np. maksymalnie 10-12 słów).\",\n  \"pl_summary\": \"2-3 zdania zwięzłego podsumowania treści aktu prawnego po polsku, napisane z perspektywy wpływu na życie codzienne obywateli.\",\n  \"pl_key_points\": [\n    \"Pierwszy krótki punkt po polsku dotyczący najważniejszych wprowadzanych rozwiązań lub zmian.\",\n    \"Drugi krótki punkt po polsku...\"\n  ],\n  \"eng_ai_title\": \"A new, short title for the legal act in English, capturing the essence of the changes (e.g., max 10-12 words).\",\n  \"eng_summary\": \"2-3 sentences summarizing the legal act in English, from the perspective of its impact on citizens' daily lives.\",\n  \"eng_key_points\": [\n    \"First short bullet point in English regarding the most important solutions or changes being introduced.\",\n    \"Second short bullet point in English...\"\n  ],\n  \"de_ai_title\": \"Ein neuer, kurzer Titel für das Rechtsdokument auf Deutsch, der den Kern der Änderungen erfasst (z.B. max. 10-12 Wörter).\",\n  \"de_summary\": \"2-3 Sätze Zusammenfassung des Rechtsdokuments auf Deutsch, aus der Perspektive seiner Auswirkungen auf das tägliche Leben der Bürger.\",\n  \"de_key_points\": [\n    \"Erster kurzer Stichpunkt auf Deutsch zu den wichtigsten eingeführten Lösungen oder Änderungen.\",\n    \"Zweiter kurzer Stichpunkt auf Deutsch...\"\n  ],\n  \"fr_ai_title\": \"Un nouveau titre court pour l'acte juridique en français, saisissant l'essence des changements (par exemple, 10-12 mots maximum).\",\n  \"fr_summary\": \"Résumé de 2-3 phrases de l'acte juridique en français, du point de vue de son impact sur la vie quotidienne des citoyens.\",\n  \"fr_key_points\": [\n    \"Premier court point en français concernant les solutions ou changements les plus importants introduits.\",\n    \"Deuxième court point en français...\"\n  ],\n  \"es_ai_title\": \"Un nuevo título breve para el acto jurídico en español, que recoja la esencia de los cambios (por ejemplo, máximo 10-12 palabras).\",\n  \"es_summary\": \"Resumen de 2-3 frases del acto jurídico en español, desde la perspectiva de su impacto en la vida cotidiana de los ciudadanos.\",\n  \"es_key_points\": [\n    \"Primer punto breve en español sobre las soluciones o cambios más importantes que se introducen.\",\n    \"Segundo punto breve en español...\"\n  ],\n  \"it_ai_title\": \"Un nuovo titolo breve per l'atto giuridico in italiano, che colga l'essenza delle modifiche (ad es. massimo 10-12 parole).\",\n  \"it_summary\": \"Riepilogo di 2-3 frasi dell'atto giuridico in italiano, dal punto di vista del suo impatto sulla vita quotidiana dei cittadini.\",\n  \"it_key_points\": [\n    \"Primo breve punto in italiano riguardante le soluzioni o le modifiche più importanti introdotte.\",\n    \"Secondo breve punto in italiano...\"\n  ],\n  \"nl_ai_title\": \"Een nieuwe, korte titel voor de rechtshandeling in het Nederlands, die de essentie van de wijzigingen weergeeft (bijv. max. 10-12 woorden).\",\n  \"nl_summary\": \"Samenvatting van 2-3 zinnen van de rechtshandeling in het Nederlands, vanuit het perspectief van de impact op het dagelijks leven van burgers.\",\n  \"nl_key_points\": [\n    \"Eerste korte punt in het Nederlands betreffende de belangrijkste geïntroduceerde oplossingen of wijzigingen.\",\n    \"Tweede korte punt in het Nederlands...\"\n  ],\n  \"pt_ai_title\": \"Um novo título curto para o ato jurídico em português, capturando a essência das mudanças (por exemplo, máx. 10-12 palavras).\",\n  \"pt_summary\": \"Resumo de 2-3 frases do ato jurídico em português, na perspetiva do seu impacto na vida quotidiana dos cidadãos.\",\n  \"pt_key_points\": [\n    \"Primeiro ponto curto em português sobre as soluções ou alterações mais importantes introduzidas.\",\n    \"Segundo ponto curto em português...\"\n  ],\n  \"category\": [\"Categorize the document into one category by default, based on the field it primarily concerns. Choose up to 3 if the document also touches upon SIGNIFICANT issues from other categories. You MUST select categories ONLY from the following list: Health, Education, Family, Taxes, Labor, Security, Environment, Courts and Law, Transport, Benefits, Real Estate, Media and Culture, Local Government, Migration, Agriculture, Public Investments, Informatization, Economy. If the document does not definitively fit any of these, you MUST use \"Other\". If you use \"Other\", it should be the ONLY category selected. Do NOT invent new categories. The response must be an array of strings, e.g., [\"Taxes\", \"Family\"].\"]\n}\n\n",
      "ai_response_raw": "{\n  \"pl_ai_title\": \"Rezolucja w sprawie wymazania impeachmentów prezydenta Donalda Trumpa z lat 2019 i 2021.\",\n  \"pl_summary\": \"Projekt ma na celu oficjalne usunięcie z rejestrów Kongresu dwóch procedur impeachmentu przeciwko Donaldowi Trumpowi. Autorzy argumentują, że procesy te były motywowane politycznie i naruszały zasady sprawiedliwości oraz rzetelnego procesu.\",\n  \"pl_key_points\": [\n    \"Całkowite wymazanie impeachmentu z 18 grudnia 2019 roku z oficjalnych dokumentów Izby Reprezentantów.\",\n    \"Całkowite wymazanie impeachmentu z 13 stycznia 2021 roku z oficjalnych dokumentów Izby Reprezentantów.\",\n    \"Uznanie, że zarzuty z 2019 roku opierały się na stronniczych zeznaniach i braku bezpośredniej wiedzy świadków.\",\n    \"Wskazanie na brak przesłuchań dowodowych i pośpiech podczas procedury impeachmentu w 2021 roku.\"\n  ],\n  \"eng_ai_title\": \"Resolution to Expunge the 2019 and 2021 Impeachments of Donald Trump.\",\n  \"eng_summary\": \"This resolution seeks to formally remove the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of Donald Trump from the official House records. It claims the original processes were politically biased and lacked proper legal due process.\",\n  \"eng_key_points\": [\n    \"Expunges the December 18, 2019, impeachment articles as if they never passed.\",\n    \"Expunges the January 13, 2021, impeachment article as if it never passed.\",\n    \"Argues that the first impeachment relied on biased whistleblower testimony and fabricated evidence.\",\n    \"Claims the second impeachment lacked evidentiary hearings, witnesses, and meaningful deliberation.\"\n  ],\n  \"de_ai_title\": \"Resolution zur Löschung der Impeachments von Donald Trump aus 2019 und 2021.\",\n  \"de_summary\": \"Diese Resolution zielt darauf ab, die Amtsenthebungsverfahren gegen Donald Trump aus den Jahren 2019 und 2021 offiziell aus den Akten des Repräsentantenhauses zu streichen. Die Befürworter argumentieren, dass diese Verfahren politisch motiviert waren und rechtsstaatliche Grundsätze verletzten.\",\n  \"de_key_points\": [\n    \"Vollständige Löschung des Impeachments vom 18. Dezember 2019 aus den offiziellen Unterlagen.\",\n    \"Vollständige Löschung des Impeachments vom 13. Januar 2021 aus den offiziellen Unterlagen.\",\n    \"Kritik an voreingenommenen Zeugen und dem Mangel an direkten Beweisen im ersten Verfahren.\",\n    \"Feststellung, dass das zweite Verfahren ohne ordnungsgemäße Anhörungen oder Debatten durchgeführt wurde.\"\n  ],\n  \"fr_ai_title\": \"Résolution visant à effacer les destitutions de Donald Trump de 2019 et 2021.\",\n  \"fr_summary\": \"Cette résolution vise à supprimer officiellement des archives de la Chambre des représentants les deux procédures de destitution contre Donald Trump. Elle soutient que ces actions étaient politiquement biaisées et n'ont pas respecté les principes du procès équitable.\",\n  \"fr_key_points\": [\n    \"Effacement de la destitution du 18 décembre 2019, comme si elle n'avait jamais eu lieu.\",\n    \"Effacement de la destitution du 13 janvier 2021, comme si elle n'avait jamais eu lieu.\",\n    \"Contestation de la validité des preuves et dénonciation de partis pris politiques lors du premier procès.\",\n    \"Critique de l'absence d'auditions de témoins et de délibérations sérieuses lors du second procès.\"\n  ],\n  \"es_ai_title\": \"Resolución para anular los juicios políticos de Donald Trump de 2019 y 2021.\",\n  \"es_summary\": \"Esta resolución busca eliminar formalmente de los registros de la Cámara de Representantes los dos juicios políticos contra Donald Trump. Se argumenta que los procesos fueron motivados políticamente y carecieron de las garantías procesales necesarias.\",\n  \"es_key_points\": [\n    \"Anulación del juicio político del 18 de diciembre de 2019 de los registros oficiales.\",\n    \"Anulación del juicio político del 13 de enero de 2021 de los registros oficiales.\",\n    \"Alegación de que las acusaciones originales se basaron en testimonios sesgados y pruebas fabricadas.\",\n    \"Crítica a la falta de audiencias probatorias y al proceso acelerado en el segundo juicio político.\"\n  ],\n  \"it_ai_title\": \"Risoluzione per cancellare gli impeachment di Donald Trump del 2019 e 2021.\",\n  \"it_summary\": \"Questa risoluzione mira a rimuovere ufficialmente dagli atti della Camera i due procedimenti di impeachment contro Donald Trump. Sostiene che tali processi siano stati politicamente orientati e privi del giusto processo legale.\",\n  \"it_key_points\": [\n    \"Cancellazione dell'impeachment del 18 dicembre 2019 come se non fosse mai avvenuto.\",\n    \"Cancellazione dell'impeachment del 13 gennaio 2021 come se non fosse mai avvenuto.\",\n    \"Denuncia di pregiudizi politici e mancanza di conoscenza diretta da parte dei testimoni nel primo caso.\",\n    \"Rilevazione della mancanza di audizioni e di un processo legislativo regolare nel secondo caso.\"\n  ],\n  \"nl_ai_title\": \"Resolutie tot schrapping van de impeachments van Donald Trump uit 2019 en 2021.\",\n  \"nl_summary\": \"Deze resolutie beoogt de officiële schrapping van de twee afzettingsprocedures tegen Donald Trump uit de registers van het Huis van Afgevaardigden. Er wordt gesteld dat deze processen politiek gemotiveerd waren en de rechtsbeginselen schonden.\",\n  \"nl_key_points\": [\n    \"Schrapping van de impeachment van 18 december 2019 uit de officiële documenten.\",\n    \"Schrapping van de impeachment van 13 januari 2021 uit de officiële documenten.\",\n    \"Bewering dat de eerste procedure steunde op bevooroordeelde getuigen en onjuiste bewijzen.\",\n    \"Kritiek op het gebrek aan hoorzittingen en een eerlijk proces bij de tweede procedure in 2021.\"\n  ],\n  \"pt_ai_title\": \"Resolução para anular os impeachments de Donald Trump de 2019 e 2021.\",\n  \"pt_summary\": \"Esta resolução procura remover formalmente dos registos da Câmara os dois processos de impeachment contra Donald Trump. Argumenta-se que os processos foram politicamente motivados e não respeitaram o devido processo legal.\",\n  \"pt_key_points\": [\n    \"Anulação do impeachment de 18 de dezembro de 2019, como se nunca tivesse ocorrido.\",\n    \"Anulação do impeachment de 13 de janeiro de 2021, como se nunca tivesse ocorrido.\",\n    \"Alegação de que as acusações foram baseadas em testemunhos tendenciosos e falta de provas diretas.\",\n    \"Crítica à ausência de audiências e à rapidez indevida do processo no segundo impeachment.\"\n  ],\n  \"category\": [\"Courts and Law\"]\n}"
    }
  ]
}