Schoos: Our Founders Did Not Shrink From Their Responsibilities, Let Us Not Shrink From Ours

Schoos: Our Founders Did Not Shrink From Their Responsibilities, Let Us Not Shrink From Ours

...we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

So stated the signers of the Declaration of Independence. After attempting and failing to resolve the colonies’ differences with King George III and his Prime Minister Frederick Lord North, the colonies had little recourse but to declare their independence. The signers, Jefferson, Franklin, Sherman, Hopkins, and Adams, to name just a few, all knew the consequences of failure, but signed anyway. John Hancock signed his name in such a manner so that King George could see it without his “specs.” 

All 56 signers knew what they risked. If they failed, they would lose their land and wealth, no doubt their freedom, and possibly, for some, their lives. Despite that, they pledged their lives, fortunes, and perhaps most importantly, their “sacred Honor.”  In the last analysis, the words “sacred Honor” represent a clear statement of principle. They agreed to follow specific political and ethical principles and risked all to so do. 

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

People who risk all in pursuit of a principle are not worried about what their fate will be if they fail. People who risk all know that there is a good chance of failure, but because the cause is just, and the categorical imperative so strong and clear, they act anyway. In short, “sacred Honor” is synonymous with “moral courage,” that quality that leads a person to act for the greater good no matter her personal risks.

This Independence Day will commemorate the 243rd anniversary of our break from Great Britain. It’s on this day that we all come together to celebrate that anniversary with parades, cookouts, and fireworks. It is a non-partisan, non-political celebration of America. Except for this year.

The Age of Trump

This year, in this Age of Trump, Donald Trump will place himself in the center of our national celebrations, complete with a military parade that he has long desired, a fly over that includes Air Force 1, and a scheduled address from the Lincoln Memorial. He’s even cordoned off a VIP section so that family and friends can hear his remarks. 

To paraphrase J.D. Salinger’s Holden Caulfield, if Lincoln could see what Trump’s done to Independence Day, he’d puke.

However, it is on this Independence Day that we, as a people, can also move the House of Representatives to begin formal impeachment hearings into the conduct of Trump. If “high crimes and misdemeanors” mean anything, it is that it covers all manner of conduct in office, some of which might be criminal in nature, others might be political in nature, such as maladministration in office and other offenses against the public. In short, it’s whatever the Congress considers “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

There is more than ample evidence to support such hearings. Let’s begin with the Mueller Report of a few months ago. The Report is 448 pages long and divided into two parts. Volume I details evidence of over 100 direct contacts between Russians and members of Trump’s campaign. While Mueller was unable to establish the nexus of intent between the parties to establish a charge of conspiracy between the two parties, there was ample evidence that the Russians intervened in the 2016 presidential election on Trump’s behalf, and that Trump welcomed those activities. These acts, while not proven to be part of a conspiracy, were secret, illicit, and complicit. In other words, “collusion.”

Volume II is more damning. Mueller found at least four instances where Trump directly sought to obstruct Mueller’s investigation: attempting to fire Mueller, directing White House Counsel McGann to draft a false memorandum justifying Mueller’s firing, attempting to limit Mueller to investigating  only efforts of foreign interference in the 2020 elections (thus preventing investigating the 2016 election), and his attempt to prevent his former campaign chair Paul Manafort from cooperating with the government’s investigation into the 2016 campaign. In addition, there are questions about his firing of then FBI director James Comey, participating in the false explanation of Trump’s son for meeting with Russians who promised “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, and more. By the beginning of May, over 800 former federal prosecutors found evidence sufficient to support obstruction of justice charges. 

Because Trump has refused to divest himself from his businesses, legitimate questions exist about him violating the Emoluments Clause. We know from financial records that he made $400,000 from his Washington hotel, which we further know is a prime destination for corporations and foreign governments having business with this administration. Moreover, we know that he doubled his initiation fees at Mar-a-Lago. We know that the Secret Service paid just one property $200,000 so that they could do their job protecting him. No doubt there’s more.

We know that he violated campaign finance laws when he paid off a porn star to ensure her silence regarding their illicit sexual encounter. We know also that 22 women have come forward accusing Trump of sexual harassment, sexual groping, and a recent credible accusation of rape.

We know that Trump has forsaken America’s allies in favor of our enemies. His actions and comments have weakened NATO. Trump takes the word of Putin and Kim over that of our intelligence community. He praises President Xi for his strong leadership. He ignores evidence that Mohammad bin Salmon orchestrated the brutal murder and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi. He gives no explanation for his affinity for authoritarian leaders. 

This list of instances regarding his conduct, not policies, while in office is seemingly endless, but one more item merits mention. At the conclusion of the G20 meeting in Japan on June 29, during a press conference, Trump was asked to respond to Putin’s recent comments that western liberalism is dead. In answer, he launched on a diatribe stating, “Well, I mean he may feel that way. He’s sees what’s going on, I guess, if you look at what’s happening in Los Angeles, where it’s so sad to look, and what’s happening in San Francisco and a couple of other cities, which are run by an extraordinary group of liberal people.” 

Add to the above list of impeachable issues the fact that this man is too intellectually, politically, and experientially unfit for the office he holds. 

An Act of Last Resort

Impeachment is an act of last resort. It is a means by which an official, upon specific findings of fact, can be referred to the Senate for trial. While elections are to be revered and honored, there are times when mistakes, profound mistakes, occur and the only thing worse than the mistake is failing to take corrective action. In other words, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

As of this writing, 80 members of the House have called for the start of an impeachment inquiry, one of which is our own David Cicilline. As of this writing, Representative Langevin has not supported convening hearings. I am asking that Congressman Langevin publicly support the convening of these hearings and ask that all readers who agree that an investigation be commenced contact Langevin’s office urging him to do so.

An impeachment is an extraordinary act in extraordinary circumstances. I assert that these are extraordinary circumstances. So far, the Speaker of the House has been reluctant to move citing lack of public support, damage to political fortunes in the 2020 elections, and the unlikely possibility of a conviction in the Senate. History doesn’t support these concerns. Less than 20% of the public supported the beginning of Nixon’s impeachment, but by its near completion republicans told him there was little support for him in the Senate. After Clinton’s ill-fated impeachment and trial, the republicans did not suffer a loss of power in either the 1998 or 2000 elections. 

Two hundred forty-three years ago, a group of men banded together and changed the course of history. There were numerous compelling reasons for them to fail to act, but only one reason to do so: because it was the right thing to do. As it was then, so it is now. As our founders did not shrink from their responsibilities, let us not shrink from ours. 

Geoffrey A. Schoos, Esq is the past President of the former Rhode Island Center for Law and Public Policy.