As I walked into the House chamber on Wednesday evening, I had flashbacks to a sadly familiar scene. Just a day short of 21 years ago, I had cast my votes to impeach President Bill Clinton and was then selected to serve as a House manager -- a prosecutor -- to argue our case before the Senate. While the Clinton impeachment was a bitterly divisive moment in our history, I did what I believed -- and still believe -- was right. This week, the sight and sounds were similar, but the underlying facts were vastly different. After evaluating the allegations against President Donald Trump and the process that led us here, I determined that I could not vote to impeach. Earlier this Congress, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, and Jerrold Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, set forth criteria for undertaking an impeachment. They said that the evidence would have to be overwhelming and compelling, and, importantly, it would have to be bipartisan. Looking back at the Clinton impeachment, I'm convinced we satisfied each of these. Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, conducted a very lengthy and nonpartisan investigation, delivering 36 boxes of evidence to Congress. He concluded that the president had committed grand jury perjury and obstructed justice to cover his lies. Mr. Starr testified before our committee that the president might have committed impeachable offenses. By this time, Congress had already established that grand jury perjury was an impeachable offense: In 1989 we had removed a federal judge -- Walter L. Nixon Jr. -- for that very crime. When I delivered the opening argument in the Senate trial, I noted that we ought not to hold the president to a lower standard than we do a federal judge. Fast forward to the present day, and things are drastically different. Just moments after President Trump took the oath of office, The Washington Post ran a headline, "The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun." Chairman Nadler later campaigned for the Judiciary gavel with the promise that he was best fit to lead an impeachment. Worse, 103 current members of the House Democratic Caucus voted to move forward with impeachment even before President Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Vitriol and blind hatred aside, President Trump has been robbed of his constitutionally protected due process rights. There was no independent investigation. Instead, Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, conducted a few weeks of closed-door hearings in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center. This is the same man who infamously stated on cable television that he had overwhelming evidence that President Trump had colluded with the Russians during the 2016 election. The special counsel Robert Mueller found nothing of the sort. The closed-door hearings led to a railroad job in the House Judiciary Committee, where a majority denied those of us in the minority our rights. When we finally considered the articles of impeachment, they were so broad and flimsy that almost any other president could most likely have been accused of them. Article II, the obstruction of Congress charge, is particularly bad, as Democrats failed even to give a court -- the proper arbiter of these disagreements -- the chance to weigh in on the matter. Further, none of the articles allege that the president committed a crime -- a drastic departure from the Nixon and Clinton cases. Nevertheless, Democrats prioritized haste as they jammed through their impeachment vote. Again and again, Democrats told us that Congress could not wait to impeach the president. Yet Speaker Pelosi's decision to withhold the articles from the Senate shows us that we can apparently wait. This whole exercise has been completely bunk. Earlier this year, I wrote in The Wall Street Journal that an unfair process cannot lead us to true justice. The House impeachment inquiry and process was unfair, and therefore unjust. A majority of my constituents in Wisconsin -- a key battleground state -- do not support the impeachment charade against the president. Rather, they ask why we don't wait a few months and let the voters decide whether President Trump should remain in office. One fear, proffered by Al Green, a Democratic representative from Texas, is that "if we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected." Apparently, the voters cannot be trusted. They might just choose President Trump. Again. The real damage done by all of this is the precedent it sets. President Trump -- if ever tried in the Senate -- will most likely be acquitted. However, by lowering the bar of what is an impeachable offense and by failing to meet the Pelosi/Nadler criteria, we will all but ensure that all future divided governments will lead to impeachments. Mere policy disagreements will become charges of abuse of power. The founders feared that impeachment might someday be used for solely partisan reasons. For 230 years, Congress had fought off that temptation. Unfortunately, in 2019, some let their disdain for President Trump lead us down this path. I never thought I'd experience another presidential impeachment. As I walked out of the House chamber following my second, I felt saddened, not just for President Trump and the 63 million people who elected him, but also for future generations. If Democrats thought impeaching a president was difficult, just wait until they have to clean up their mess. Jim Sensenbrenner (@JimPressOffice), a Republican, represents Wisconsin's Fifth Congressional District. He has served as a House impeachment manager for four Senate trials, more than anyone in history. He also served as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee from 2001 to 2007.

Tensions ran high 20 years ago as we stood in the well of the Senate before Chief Justice William Rehnquist, all 100 senators and the nation. As House impeachment managers, we presented our case against President Clinton. We were somber but confident, knowing that we had afforded Mr. Clinton every due-process right to defend himself. Now we find ourselves on the verge of another presidential impeachment. But this time the process is so fundamentally unfair that justice cannot be served. For the past two months, House Democrats, led by Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, have conducted a sham investigation with predetermined conclusions. It will do unthinkable damage to the credibility of the House and to the nation. Since President Trump took the oath of office, Mr. Schiff has led a quest to overturn the 2016 election. We have both worked with Mr. Schiff on the Judiciary Committee, and one of us (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has managed two judicial impeachments (of Samuel B. Kent and G. Thomas Porteous Jr. ) alongside him. While in those cases he was fair and reasonable, here he has let his blind hatred of the president poison his conduct and destroy his credibility. For more than two years, Mr. Schiff misled the public about having clear evidence that Mr Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election. Special counsel Robert Mueller found no such evidence. Mr. Schiff then set his eyes on the next "scandal." A seemingly too-good-to-be-true report appeared, accusing the president of improper action. Mr. Schiff took to cable news to propagate the new narrative, but it soon began to crumble. We learned that the biased "whistleblower" had contacted Mr. Schiff's committee before filing his report, and Mr. Schiff lied about it. Nevertheless, Speaker Nancy Pelosi decreed the House to have begun an impeachment inquiry and Mr. Schiff launched three weeks of closed-door hearings. He played judge and jury, selectively leaking private testimony to fuel a smear campaign. In blatant disregard of congressional practice, he has prevented elected members from asking certain questions of his "star witnesses." The American people saw through this charade, and Mrs. Pelosi brought the rules for this process up for a vote last week. But it's too little and too late. The rules resolution falls woefully short of the Constitution's due-process standard. Every American has the right to hear all evidence presented against him, face his accuser directly, and mount a defense. We made sure to afford Mr. Clinton these rights in 1998-99. The president's counsel must have the right to participate in all impeachment proceedings. The congressional minority must have an equal right to call witnesses, subpoena documents and cross-examine witnesses. Last week's resolution is an absolute failure to protect those rights. It permits Mr. Schiff to continue with his closed-door depositions, and it grants him sole authority to decide which information is relevant, which witnesses can testify and which evidence will be transferred to the Judiciary Committee. When the Intelligence Committee turns over the proceedings to the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Jerry Nadler will then have the authority to deny the president's counsel access to evidence, the ability to cross-examine witnesses and the full ability to participate in other ways. It's laughable to claim that's fair or impartial. Americans should be concerned about the denial of fundamental constitutional rights to the president of the United States. If it can happen to him, whom can't it happen to? From day one, the Democrats have had their sights set on impeachment and have charted a process that could only lead to that end. By denying due process to this president, Democrats have delegitimized the House and its constitutional powers, and have done irreparable damage to the country. Messrs. Sensenbrenner and Chabot, both Republicans, represent Wisconsin's Fifth and Ohio's First congressional districts, respectively.

By Jim Sensenbrenner The American economy is thriving. That is an indisputable fact. We've added more than 3.7 million jobs since President Trump signed the historic Tax Cuts & Jobs Act into law in December 2017. Nationwide, we've seen 15 straight months of more job openings than job seekers. Here in Wisconsin, our unemployment rate has remained at or below 3 percent for the last year. Following years of stagnation, American families are emerging with new optimism as they see a growing economy and additional opportunities -- if you want a job, you have a good chance of landing one. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board recently compared the Trump and Obama years as "A Tale of Two Economies," highlighting what good can happen when policies focus on growth. And now, Republicans are fighting to improve our standing in the global economy too. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was ratified 25 years ago, and it is time for a rebalancing of this trade agreement. Under the guidance of President Trump, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Peter Navarro are working to renegotiate our trade deals and have successfully reached a final agreement between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada -- the "USMCA." For the last year, the president and his representatives have traveled the country, listening to workers and business owners about the impacts of trade on their productivity. In May, I had the privilege of hosting Dr. Navarro at Waukesha County Technical College (WCTC). This visit highlighted the amazing work WCTC is doing to grow the manufacturing workforce in southeastern Wisconsin. However, these new jobs will only thrive if our trade policies empower workers and businesses to compete in the global marketplace. Tomorrow, Milwaukee's Derco Aerospace Inc. will host President Trump to discuss the need for 21st century trade policies. I am grateful to the president and his administration for focusing on Wisconsin's manufacturing needs. We must help him finish the job by pushing the USMCA through Congress this year. The USMCA will benefit Wisconsin directly. One aspect of the new trade deal particularly important to Wisconsin is that it will eliminate components of Canada's unfair milk pricing program, opening new markets and providing relief for our state's dairy farmers. The deal will also force Mexico to correct its unfair labor practices, putting American workers on a level playing field. These are two very important provisions considering the fact that, in 2018, 31 percent of all Wisconsin's exported goods ($7 billion)went to Canada and 15.5 percent went to Mexico ($3.5 billion). Along with provisions to improve the trading of traditional goods, our new trade deal addressesnewer technologies. The USMCA will bring our intellectual property standards into the modern era, protecting the work of American innovators and entrepreneurs. It will also cut costly regulations that keep small businesses from participating in cross-border trade. This new trade deal is good for America. I'm encouraged that the Mexican Senate overwhelmingly ratified the USMCA in June and that President Trump has met with Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau recently in Washington to shore up more support for the agreement. Now, the United States must act. House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, must bring the USMCA before the House for immediate consideration. There should be no delay. Failure to do so will leave American workers and businesses playing by an outdated set of rules as our foreign competitors move on without us. I am hearing from small business owners, farmers, young people entering the workforce, and families who want us to rebalance our trade agreements and keep strengthening the American economy with balanced trade rules. Let's get it done now. (Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner represents Wisconsin's Fifth Congressional District.)