Skip to content

By: Emily Cochrane of The New York Times

WASHINGTON — On New Year’s Day in 1999, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, sat on the floor of his Capitol Hill office, surrounded by piles of documents and legal notes, drafting his opening argument in President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in the Senate.

With the sound of the University of Wisconsin Badgers facing off against the U.C.L.A. Bruins in the Rose Bowl blaring from a television in the background, Mr. Sensenbrenner readied his case that the president should be removed from office for lying about a sexual affair with a White House intern.

In the coming days, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, is expected to select four to 10 members of the House of Representatives for a similar assignment, making the case to the Senate for why President Trump deserves to be ousted for pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rivals. But unlike Mr. Sensenbrenner or the dozen other prosecutors who made the case against Mr. Clinton 21 years ago, the new prosecutors will not have had the benefit of a two-week holiday break to prepare their arguments or hone their strategies.

On Friday, after a weekslong impasse, Ms. Pelosi alerted lawmakers that she would move next week to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, prompting the start of a Senate trial as early as Wednesday.

Ms. Pelosi’s decision to withhold the articles of impeachment in an unsuccessful effort to extract assurances from Senate leadership about the terms of the trial has delayed the appointment of the so-called impeachment managers, raising the stakes and compressing the timetable of their already challenging task.

It is a job that veterans say is fraught with legal complexity, political pressure and historic significance.

“I really don’t want to give them any advice,” Mr. Sensenbrenner said in an interview. “But I guess I can say is that this is going to be a lot more work than you think.”

“The American people,” he added, “are going to be watching.”

The pivotal role of the managers is one reason that Ms. Pelosi has waited to send the charges to the Senate. Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, said this week that he had the votes to move forward with an impeachment trial without committing to calling witnesses or hearing new evidence. Without knowing whether there will be witnesses to question or new complex documents to digest, the speaker cannot decide what kind of lawmakers are best suited to the task.

People close to Ms. Pelosi say it is all but certain that one of the managers will be Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, a former federal prosecutor who oversees the Intelligence Committee and led the investigation into Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee that approved the two articles of impeachment against the president that the House passed last month, is also widely expected to be a leader of the group. But for now, final decisions on the rest of the team remain unresolved.

Times have changed considerably since 1998, when the Republican-led House sent 13 white men to the Senate to serve as impeachment managers. Given the diversity of today’s rank-and-file Democrats, Ms. Pelosi is likely to select a group to prosecute Mr. Trump that includes women and members of color.

Mr. Sensenbrenner had previously served as an impeachment manager in the case of Walter Louis Nixon Jr., a federal judge who was impeached and removed from the bench for lying to federal grand juries. In his preparation for the Clinton trial, Mr. Sensenbrenner recalled being given some wry advice from the House Judiciary Committee chairman at the time, Henry J. Hyde, Republican of Illinois, who instructed him to keep his opening statement shorter than the two-and-a-half-day speech that kicked off President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment trial in 1868.

Another impeachment manager, James E. Rogan, a Republican from California, was chosen despite having just joined the House in 1997, in part because he had previously been a prosecutor, which had helped land him a seat on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Rogan was defeated by Mr. Schiff in 2000 and is now a state trial court judge in California. A framed poster that hangs above the door to his judicial chambers in Orange County reminds him daily of the vitriol he attracted as one of Mr. Clinton’s main antagonists. “People unite! DENOUNCE ROGAN!!!” it reads.

“I’ve been through one of these before,” Representative Steve Chabot, Republican of Ohio, one of the 13 Clinton impeachment managers, said at a hearing last month. “And they’re ugly. So I have a lot of sympathy for the House managers that are going to be picked.”

In the years since Mr. Clinton’s trial, the job of the managers has only grown more complex. The debate is also more starkly partisan than it was then, with almost no defections from either side. Social media now allows for running commentary online, including by the president himself. During the House’s impeachment inquiry, Mr. Trump used Twitter to disparage witnesses as they were testifying against him.

“I guess what the president was doing is doing his own cross-examination on Twitter,” Mr. Sensenbrenner observed.

Nearly all of the 13 managers from Mr. Clinton’s trial are still alive and three remain in Congress: Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Chabot both still sit on the Judiciary Committee and voted last month against impeaching Mr. Trump. The third is Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who is now a senator and the chairman of that chamber’s Judiciary Committee. He will serve as one of 100 jurors in the Senate trial.

“To see Jim Sensenbrenner and Steve Chabot up there, and Lindsey Graham up on the other side, it is sort of odd,” said former Representative Bob Barr, Republican of Georgia, another of the Clinton impeachment managers. “Here we are 20 years later, and we’re doing the exact same thing again.”

Some have revisited their experience, publicly and privately, as the country readies for another impeachment trial. Mr. Sensenbrenner consulted with Republican leaders in the House before the vote on impeachment articles, and Mr. Graham has described his experience to Republican lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol about his experience. Mr. Rogan said that one Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, whom he declined to name, had reached out to him for advice. Others have been less candid about their thoughts on the current impeachment proceedings. Charles T. Canady, who is now chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court, has declined all interview requests on the subject.

“They need to understand the seriousness of what they’re going into,” said Bill McCollum, a former representative from Florida who was one of the Clinton impeachment managers. “They’re going to be doing something very unique — very few people have done what they’re about to do.”

The job comes with political risks. Mr. Rogan lost his seat to Mr. Schiff in part because Democrats targeted him for his role in the impeachment proceedings. Democrats argue that current Republicans in Congress will suffer electoral retribution for their united defense of Mr. Trump.

Mr. Sensenbrenner, who is not running for re-election after more than 40 years in the House, acknowledged that retirement absolved him of any concerns about being punished by voters as a consequence of his full-throated defense of Mr. Trump.

“I really can avoid people coming up to me back home, saying, ‘I’m never going to vote for you again, because you did this,’” he said.

Mr. Sensenbrenner’s perspective on the charges against Mr. Trump — he calls them “phony” — are the opposite of how he viewed those made against Mr. Clinton 21 years ago.

But the experience still feels familiar, he said.

“I’m going through the déjà vu period of my life,” he said as he left the House floor before the impeachment votes. “I never thought I would have to do this again.”

By: Stephen Kelley of WQOW

(WQOW) - Four members of Wisconsin's Republican Congressional delegation have signed a brief asking for the United States Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

They were among 39 Republican senators and 168 representatives to send the brief over to the high court.

It was submitted in the case of June Medical Services LLC vs. Gee which the court will take up this spring.

The Louisiana lawsuit would require doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where the abortion is being performed.

State officials say the law would effectively close all of the state's abortion clinics.

For decades, Roe v. Wade has been a roadblock for Republicans seeking to curtail access to abortion, but lawmakers are hopeful for change based on the current conservative majority in the Supreme Court.

Wisconsin lawmakers who signed on include Senator Ron Johnson, Representative Glenn Grothman (R-Glenbeulah), Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Menomonee Falls), Representative Bryan Stiel, (R-Janesville).

Mike Gallagher a Republican representative out of Green Bay and all Wisconsin Democrats did not sign on to the brief.


UNDATED (Wisconsin Radio Network-WSAU) - Four Wisconsin congressional Republicans have signed onto a legal brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider overturn Roe versus Wade.

Senator Johnson and Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner, Glenn Grothman and Bryan Steil are among 39 Republican senators and 168 representatives who've signed an amicus brief asking the high court to reconsider and possibly overturn its landmark 1973 decision which guarantees women the right to access abortion. The brief submitted in a case challenging a 2014 Louisiana law which required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of where the abortion is performed. That law is not now in effect, but if it were, reportedly all of Louisiana's abortion clinics would close.

Several states including Louisiana, Alabama, Texas and Missouri have passed laws that would restrict abortion that have been blocked by lower courts. Many of those laws were designed specifically to challenge Roe versus Wade at the U.S. Supreme Court. The Louisiana law is the first to reach the high court.

By: Riley Vetterkind of the Wisconsin State Journal

Four Republicans from Wisconsin have signed onto a legal brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider overturning its landmark Roe v. Wade ruling guaranteeing the right to an abortion.

U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Oshkosh, and U.S. Reps. Glenn Grothman, R-Glenbeulah; Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Menomonee Falls; and Bryan Steil, R-Janesville, were among 39 Republican senators and 168 representatives who signed onto a brief on Thursday asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider and possibly overturn the 1973 decision.

No congressional Democrats from Wisconsin signed onto the brief, nor did U.S. Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Green Bay.

A Gallagher spokesman said the congressman “has a consistent pro-life voting record and obviously supports the broader efforts of the brief.”

The lawmakers submitted the brief in the case of June Medical Services LLC v. Gee. The case, which the U.S. Supreme Court will consider this spring, challenges a 2014 Louisiana law, not currently in effect, which required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital within 30 miles of the facility where the abortion is performed.

If the law is implemented, all of Louisiana’s abortion clinics would close according to local news reports.

For decades, Roe has served as a roadblock for Republicans seeking to curtail access to abortion, but the court’s current conservative majority has made it more attractive for Republicans across the nation to test the limits of the ruling.

In May, for example, Alabama’s Republican Gov. Kay Ivey signed into law the most punitive abortion law in the country. It made providing an abortion a felony punishable by up to 99 years in prison except to save the mother’s life, with no consideration for incest or rape.

One of the goals of the law was to spark a legal challenge that would lead the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider Roe.

In October, a U.S. District Court judge blocked the law while the case is pending.

In Wisconsin, Republican lawmakers in the state Assembly and Senate passed less restrictive, but contentious legislation that would have imposed a life sentence on a doctor who intentionally allowed the death of a baby born alive after an attempted abortion. They also approved a bill that attempted to thwart abortions based on fetal attributes such as race, gender or health condition.

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers vetoed the legislation, which Democrats and health care professionals slammed for spreading what they called false and dangerous information about abortions and creating unnecessary and redundant protections.

By: Jim Sensenbrenner in the New York Times

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.

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.

By: James Wigdergson of Right Wisconsin

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI5) sharply criticized Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) over the possibility that she would delay transmittal of the articles of impeachment of President Donald Trump to the U.S. Senate.

“The Democrats repeatedly said that President Trump had to be impeached now. ‘This can’t wait’ was the common refrain,” Sensenbrenner said in a statement released Thursday. “Well, apparently, it can wait. Speaker Pelosi is withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate because her case cannot win over there. While Democrats were able to railroad the first strictly-partisan impeachment through the House, their power has limits and cannot guarantee their desired verdict in the Senate.”

The House of Representatives passed two articles of impeachment on Wednesday. Normally this would result in the transmission of the articles to the Senate for a trial. However, some Democrats have seized on an idea by Bulwark Online Editor Charlie Sykes to delay sending the articles of impeachment until Republicans in the Senate agree to rules proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), including the calling of new witnesses to testify.

Schumer’s proposal was rejected by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who responded that it was up to the House of Representatives to do the investigative work of impeachment.

“The House chose this road,” McConnell said. “It is their duty to investigate. It is their duty to meet the very high bar for undoing a national election.”

It is unclear how House Democrats could force the Senate to accept the Democrats’ proposal for the trial format when Senate Republicans are already disinclined to consider removing Trump from office.

Sensenbrenner, the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, was one of the House Managers of the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. He criticized Pelosi for attempting to control the format of the Senate trial.

“The Constitution clearly gives the Senate, not Speaker Pelosi, ‘the sole Power to try all Impeachments.’ While the Speaker was able to manage the process meticulously in the House, she does not get to dictate the terms of the Senate trial,” Sensenbrenner said. “If impeachment really were as urgent as the Democrats said, then let the Senate consider these Articles.”

Sensenbrenner added that the trial in the Senate will expose the flaws of the impeachment process.

“The criticism all along has been that this impeachment was weak, hurried, and partisan,” Sensenbrenner said. “Now it appears that Democrats are worried the flaws of their rush-job will be exposed when they no longer control the process.”

By: Suzanne Spencer of FOX6

WASHINGTON -- Official votes are still coming in, but most were expected to vote along party lines -- except for one, who wasn't making his stance known initially -- on a night that will be remembered.

Wisconsin lawmakers weighed-in on a historic vote.

"We're talking about a president who subverted national security by soliciting foreign interference in our election," said Gwen Moore, U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 4th congressional district. "The exact thing our founding fathers feared, and the exact circumstance for which they drafted the impeachment clause."

"So why are we here? We're here because the majority caucus, the Democratic caucus, has been hijacked by the radical left," said Jim Sensenbrenner, U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 5th congressional district. "They have wanted to reverse the course of the 2016 election ever since Donald J. Trump won that election."

President Donald Trump is the third such leader in U.S. History to be impeached. A process that Mordecai Lee, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee professor emeritus, says shouldn't be taken lightly or turn political.

"What I'm afraid of, is that politics has gotten so bad in America, that this moment on -- every time the U.S. Congress has a majority party that's other than the party of the president -- they're going to impeach him or her," Lee says.

Democratic Representative Ron Kind, of Wisconsin's 3rd congressional district, garnered a lot of national attention after not declaring which way he'd vote. In the end, he voted along party lines.

The Republican Party of Wisconsin was quick to call that out, saying he and other Democrats: "Tried to conceal their stance on the issue when they knew how they would vote (for) weeks, if not for months."

Wednesday night's hours-long hearing is a night many will remember.

Washington, D.C.Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (WI05) has served as a House manager in more Senate trials than any other member in history, including the 1998-99 impeachment of President Clinton. He offered the following statement in response to Speaker Pelosi’s decision to withhold articles of impeachment from the Senate:

“The Democrats repeatedly said that President Trump had to be impeached now. ‘This can’t wait’ was the common refrain. Well, apparently, it can wait. Speaker Pelosi is withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate because her case cannot win over there. While Democrats were able to railroad the first strictly-partisan impeachment through the House, their power has limits and cannot guarantee their desired verdict in the Senate.

The Constitution clearly gives the Senate, not Speaker Pelosi, 'the sole Power to try all Impeachments.' While the Speaker was able to manage the process meticulously in the House, she does not get to dictate the terms of the Senate trial. If impeachment really were as urgent as the Democrats said, then let the Senate consider these Articles.

The criticism all along has been that this impeachment was weak, hurried, and partisan. Now it appears that Democrats are worried the flaws of their rush-job will be exposed when they no longer control the process.”

By: Craig Gilbert of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

WASHINGTON - In the end, the members of Congress from Wisconsin mirrored the almost perfect partisan divide in the House of Representatives in the impeachment of President Donald Trump Wednesday.

Democrat Ron Kind, the only lawmaker from the state who kept his vote under wraps until the end, voted for both articles of impeachment against Trump — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — joining all but three members of his party on one count and all but four on another. 

Every House Republican voted against impeachment. One independent (and former Republican) supported impeachment. 

Kind, a centrist Democrat from a western Wisconsin district that Trump narrowly carried in the 2016 presidential race, was one of just a handful of lawmakers who refused to declare their position in the days and hours leading up to the vote.

Of the 31 House Democrats in “Trump districts,” 29 voted for impeachment Wednesday, including Kind. The La Crosse Democrat had previously voted to endorse the impeachment inquiry and had sharply criticized the president’s conduct in the Ukraine scandal.

But the very competitive makeup of his heavily rural district set him apart from his two Democratic colleagues from Wisconsin (Mark Pocan and Gwen Moore) and from most Democrats in the House who hold more one-sided seats. The voters in Kind's very “purple” district voted for Democrat Barack Obama in 2012 by 11 points but for Trump by 4 points in 2016.  

"It’s clear the President’s actions were a flagrant abuse of constitutional power; it was unlawful, and it jeopardized our national security," Kind said in a statement. “My vote today was not about the President himself—more importantly, it was about defending the rule of law, our Constitution, and what signal we send future presidents of what is acceptable behavior."

Before and during the House debate Wednesday, Democrats blamed the extremely partisan nature of the Trump impeachment fight on spineless Republicans circling the wagons around Trump while ignoring clear presidential misconduct. Republicans blamed the partisan nature of the debate on Democratic haters hellbent on taking Trump down.

Democrats said failing to impeach Trump would dangerously lower the bar for future presidential conduct and green-light gross abuses of executive power.

Republicans said impeaching Trump would dangerously lower the bar for impeachment and make impeachment a casual political weapon.  

Democrats warned of Congress enabling an overbearing, anything-goes presidency.

Republicans warned of a brazen congressional coup against the president.

Democrats said they approached impeachment reluctantly and solemnly. Republicans accused them of approaching impeachment zealously and happily.

It was a debate that crystallized both the GOP's full-throated, whole-hearted embrace of Trump and the Democratic Party's utter dismay, disdain and alarm over his presidency. 

Wisconsin Republicans Jim Sensenbrenner, Glenn Grothman, Mike Gallagher and Bryan Steil all voted no. 

Kind, Moore and Pocan voted yes.

The state delegation would normally cast eight votes in the House, but northern Wisconsin's 7th District is one of four across the country that has no representation at the moment, due to the resignation of Republican Sean Duffy.

Sensenbrenner was one of the first Republicans to speak during the final House debate.

“Why are we here? We’re here because ... the Democratic caucus has been hijacked by the radical left. They have wanted to reverse the course of the 2016 election ever since Donald Trump won that election,” said Sensenbrenner, who was a central figure among House Republicans in the 1998 impeachment of Democrat Bill Clinton.

“Stop this charade,” Sensenbrenner said.   

Moore said from the floor:

“We’re talking about a president who subverted national security by soliciting foreign interference in our elections — the exact thing our founding fathers feared and the exact circumstance for which they fashioned the impeachment clause.  Our democracy, our Constitution deserves standing up for.”  

Steil said on Twitter Wednesday:

“Today, I will be voting against impeachment. There is an election in less than a year. The American people should decide if a president should remain in office, not a handful of partisan politicians in Washington.”

Grothman told Democrats from the House floor: “President Trump is keeping his campaign promises and you hate him for that.”

Pocan said from the floor:

“This is not about a single call or a single transcript. This is about a perfect storm, months of activity directly ordered by the president … an orchestrated plan demanding a foreign power interfere in our democracy. President Trump betrayed his oath of office … Today we send a clear signal to this president and all future presidents no one is above the law.”

Moore said in an interview before the vote, “I keep trying to read and find some exculpatory evidence to support the president. I keep trying to find something that would say, 'Well, maybe, (he’s not guilty),' and I just can’t.”

Sensenbrenner said in his floor remarks a key failing of the case for impeachment was that “there are no allegations the president has committed a crime. We’ve had almost three years of nonstop investigations … at no time is there any evidence that Donald J. Trump violated any criminal statutes of the United States.”

In an interview before the vote, Sensenbrenner was asked whether he thought Trump did nothing wrong, or whether he believed the president did something inappropriate but his conduct wasn't impeachable. 

"Well, I think we’re splitting hairs there. I would say probably both," Sensenbrenner said. "If I were in his shoes I would have dealt with the Ukrainians differently than he did, (but) I don’t think the phone call in question is an impeachable offense." 

Gallagher said in a TV interview that "I worry this opens up a Pandora’s box where we’re mired in a state of perpetual impeachment." 

The party-line pattern in the Trump impeachment vote was considerably starker than the votes in 1998 over Democrat Clinton’s impeachment, which were themselves quite partisan. 

In the Trump impeachment, only three lawmakers broke with their party majorities on one article and only four on another. All were Democrats opposing impeachment, and one was in the process of switching parties. A fourth Democrat, presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, voted "present" on both articles. One former Republican, now an independent (Justin Amash of Michigan), voted for impeachment.  

In the Clinton impeachment, five Democrats broke with their party to support impeachment on three articles and one Democrat crossed over on a fourth article.

Meanwhile, 81 Republicans broke with their party to oppose one article, 28 voted against another article, 12 voted against a third article and five voted against a fourth article.

Two of the four articles against a Democratic president failed in the GOP-controlled House in 1998.

Kind was in the House during that impeachment fight as well, breaking with his party to support an impeachment inquiry against Clinton but voting with his party against impeachment. 

The political consequences of his votes this time, if any, remain to be seen.

The Trump campaign declared after Wednesday night's vote, "This evening Ron Kind officially chose his party over his own constituents, securing his place in the most partisan caucus in history."

It's not clear how serious a GOP opponent Kind will draw in 2020. Polling over the course of 2019 shows Trump has a negative approval rating among Kind’s constituents (42% approve, 55% disapprove). It also shows his district is almost evenly divided over impeachment, with slightly more people opposing it than supporting it.

Washington, D.C.—Today, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05) offered the following statement after voting for the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA):

“The House passage of the USMCA is a welcome Christmas present for Wisconsin’s hard working families, especially our dairy farmers. This vote has been long overdue, and I urge the Senate to approve the trade deal as soon as possible.”