The Chicago Tribune - Commentary: Rep. Dan Lipinski: Why I will vote to impeach President Trump

Op-Ed

By Dan Lipinski

Congress' extreme partisan polarization has been very harmful to our country. We have gridlocked Washington and failed to address the most important issues Americans face including the skyrocketing cost of health care, our crumbling infrastructure, environmental threats and our national debt. That is why I thoughtfully consider issues and vote in the best interest of my constituents and our country, which means sometimes I deviate from the party line.

In considering impeachment, it is especially important to put aside partisanship, to the extent that is possible. But our current partisan polarization has undermined this impeachment process. President Donald Trump has refused to participate in any manner. Republicans have supported this and blamed the process rather than address the evidence. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he will work with the White House defense on a Senate trial.

But Democrats are not without blame either. More time should have been spent attempting to compel witness testimony from those with direct knowledge of the president's actions. Many Democrats undermined public views of this impeachment by calling for impeachment and removal of President Trump beginning not long after he was elected, and the House was even forced to vote on impeachment resolutions multiple times.

Despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying, "Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path because it divides the country," she has decided the House will vote on these articles now.

My concern with voting now is that the process will enable President Trump to declare vindication and come out stronger when it is over. In considering my vote, I begin with the belief that if the articles fail it would be interpreted as a clear exoneration of the president. The Constitution sets up the House as a grand jury, and therefore we simply need probable cause to believe that the president committed the acts. This does not mean that impeachment should be taken lightly, but it must be understood that the House is not voting with a standard that would be used for conviction in a trial.

I have carefully considered the evidence and listened to the arguments. With reasonable inference, there is evidence that President Trump withheld congressionally appropriated aid for Ukraine's defense and a "head of state" meeting at the White House in an attempt to coerce an announcement of an investigation of Vice President Joe Biden and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. This is an abuse of power. If there were evidence that the president was interested more generally in Ukrainian corruption instead of specifically in a public pronouncement of an investigation which would help him politically, this would have undercut this charge. But there was no such testimony.

It is unfortunate that we did not hear testimony from people with firsthand knowledge of President Trump's actions or see documents containing direct evidence, but this is the president's fault. This would have helped inform Congress and the American people. I believe the House should have allowed more time to press the courts to compel cooperation. But with the evidence we have, I will be voting to move this article to a trial.

The second article attempts to enforce Congress' power to conduct oversight and serve as a check on the president. I have been critical of presidential overreach, no matter who the president has been, because it takes power from the American people by taking power from the people's representatives. It is especially critical that Congress asserts its powers in impeachment. Executive privilege to shield confidential communication from Congress has never been established. Thus the second impeachment article states, "without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed executive branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with those subpoenas." This blanket refusal demonstrates the president's obstruction of Congress' legitimate power. We cannot cede more power to the executive, which is why I'm also supporting the second article.

Assuming impeachment passes, Sen. Mitch McConnell likely will bring a quick end to the trial. At this point, two-thirds likely won't vote for removal; a majority may even vote "not guilty." Some argue impeachment without removal is a punishment, but the expected Senate trial outcome would give President Trump another opportunity to claim not only exoneration but complete vindication. This will not constrain his actions and may embolden him. It may further weaken Congress. In November 2020, President Trump may be reelected.

The evidence gathered in the inquiry indicates that President Trump should be rebuked for his abuse of power with regard to Ukraine, so I will vote for impeachment. Without question the impeachment inquiry has been validated. But those who pushed House Democrats to move ahead with impeachment at this time may have handed President Trump a major victory.

Dan Lipinski, a Democrat, is the U.S. representative for Illinois' 3rd Congressional District.

Source