Explanations of votes against impeachment of President Donald Trump came out Thursday from Republican congressmen Adam Kinzinger of Channahon, who represents La Salle, Bureau and Putnam counties, and Darin LaHood of Peoria, whose district includes Marshall County.

“As I have said countless times, we need answers to what happened with regards to Ukraine, but my colleagues across the aisle chose to start this impeachment process behind closed doors well before bringing this resolution to the House floor today,” Kinzinger said.

“The impeachment resolution, as written, will further allow this broken process to continue. It’s a disservice to the American people and our Constitution, and I firmly believe that we need greater transparency and a more public process. Ignoring the right of due process, as my colleagues have done, ignores past precedent for impeachment and does not help inform the public.

“This institution requires the public’s trust, and I believe we can and must do better.”

LaHood says the Democrats’ process fails to ensure transparency or fairness,:

“For over a month, House Democrats have held an impeachment inquiry behind closed doors that shielded testimony from Members of Congress and the American public. Today’s vote is a clear admission from House Democrats that they were not following the appropriate process in the first place. Still, it fails to provide the same due process rights granted under previous impeachment inquiries.

LaHood continued: “Impeachment is the nullification of an election. Only in extraordinary and extreme instances should it be applied, and as a former federal prosecutor, nothing in the facts or evidence presented so far supports the predicate for impeachment.

“My constituents and the American people want us to focus on governing and passing legislation to help our farmers, senior citizens, and working families; not remain fixated on tearing down President Trump. I am committed to passing the USMCA, a federal infrastructure bill, bringing down the high cost of prescription drugs, and fighting the opioid crisis. Let’s get to work and stop this nonsense.”

LaHood says the attorneys for both Presidents Clinton and Nixon fully participated in the judiciary committee hearings and could make arguments. Thursday’s resolution provides no guarantees that the President’s Counsel will be allowed in hearings or depositions.

“In both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries, the minority was given co-equal power to subpoena witnesses and materials so that the process would be fair and impartial. Today’s resolution differs from the Nixon and Clinton precedents in a key way. The resolution does not provide for co-equal subpoena power. Instead, it grants the minority the right to subpoena witnesses and materials only with the concurrence of the Chair and the requirement that such subpoenas be a quote, “deemed necessary to the investigation.”

However, a representative southwest Chicago suburbs, Bill Foster (D-Ill.), said he voted in support of allowing the president’s lawyer to participate and is in favor of moving the impeachment inquiry “into the next phase, including holding public hearings, allowing the President and his Counsel to participate in the process, and establishing procedures for the transfer of evidence to the Judiciary Committee as it considers potential articles of impeachment. This follows precedents set forth in previous impeachment proceedings taken up by the House.

“The ongoing impeachment inquiry has collected extensive evidence and testimony that paints a disturbing picture of a President who abused his power and violated his oath of office. It’s time for the American people to learn firsthand about the President’s misconduct and for the House of Representatives to move forward with its constitutional obligation to hold the President accountable.”

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) had little to say about the proceedings in the House.

“Let’s put the evidence together,” Durbin said. “Let’s listen carefully to what comes out of the House. And let’s listen to the testimony of the people involved. If there was, in fact, an abuse of power in the Presidency, it goes to the heart of our Constitution. No one should be above justice.”