× Expand Gage Skidmore Senator Ron Johnson U.S. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland, 2016.

U.S. Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, was once a hawk when it came to Russia.

In 2015, Johnson appeared on CNN’s Crossfire and discussed how then-President Barack Obama was dealing with Russian aggression in Ukraine. At one point, the idea of a more direct military response toward Russia was broached and U.S. Representative Karen Bass, Democrat of California, cited polling that showed Americans had little appetite for more war.

Johnson found this objectionable, complaining that this was true only because then-President Obama had “not taken the time to explain why Vladamir Putin’s aggressive expansion threatens our national security and the world order.”

Around the same time, Johnson also said the “megalomaniac” Putin was “a danger to the civilized world.”

But all that was before Trump.

In the run-up to the 2016 election, Johnson—as chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs—became aware of Russian efforts to tilt the election toward Trump. Johnson not only sat on the information but, along with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, put the kibosh on what could have been a bipartisan effort to warn the American people.

Nevermind that the “meddling” included official-looking communications from Russia targeting likely-Democratic voters with fraudulent instructions of how to vote online. Never mind that Johnson’s home state of Wisconsin was a key beneficiary of this Russian heavy lifting and Johnson also faced re-election in 2016.

Johnson did nothing—except to downplay the seriousness of this attack.

In response to former Chief Intelligence Officer James Clapper saying that the Russians “turned” the election in Trump’s favor, Johnson said those sounding an alarm about Russian meddling had “blown it way out of proportion,” adding, “it’s not the greatest threat to our democracy.”

In the impeachment hearings, Johnson is emerging as a central figure in several crucial moments of the scandal.

In 2018, following a five-day trip to Russia, Johnson “shocked” fellow Republicans by questioning U.S. sanctions against Russia, stating, “We need to take a look at sanctions—are they actually changing Russia's behavior?”

Again, Johnson’s allegiances seemed to have shifted, to match Trump’s.

Now, during the impeachment hearings, Johnson is emerging as a central figure in several crucial moments of the scandal.

Johnson, at Trump’s behest, traveled to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's inauguration earlier this year and afterwards urged Trump to grant Zelensky a White House meeting. Both Ambassadors Gordon Sondland and Kurt Volker subsequently stated that Trump shot the meeting down and instructed them to talk to the President’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.

In the run-up to another trip to the Ukraine, Johnson spoke to Sondland, who later said of the meeting: “I shared concerns of the potential quid pro quo regarding the security aid with Senator Ron Johnson.”

Again, Johnson did nothing. And when Johnson brought up the “quid pro quo issue” during a phone call with Trump—arguably the least credible person on Earth—the President denied it and Johnson kept mum.

Johnson then traveled to Ukraine and later proclaimed that “at no time during this meeting—or any other meeting on this trip—was there any mention by Zelensky or any Ukrainian that they were feeling pressure to do anything in return for the military aid.”

On Monday, Johnson attacked Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman as he was set to testify, suggesting in a letter that the National Security Council adviser was motivated to fabricate allegations against Trump because he “fits the profile” of a never Trumper.

In fact, it is Johnson’s whose credibility is in tatters.

Johnson was present at a meeting during which the President directed Sondland and others to “talk to Rudy” Giuliani about getting the Ukrainians to make a politically damning declaration that they were investigating the former Vice President, and 2020 presidential candidate, Joe Biden for corruption.

But Johnson, alone among the participants in this meeting, implausibly claims no memory of Gulliani's name even being mentioned. "It is entirely possible he did,” Johnson allowed, “but because I do not work for the President, if made, the comment simply did not register with me."

But here’s the biggest head scratcher: Johnson claims he was fully assuaged of any quid pro quo concerns when he talked to Trump on August 31. Yet, Trump explicitly told Johnson that he could not tell the Ukrainians that the hold on the aid money had been lifted during his September 5 meeting with Zelensky.

David Holmes, a senior staffer at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, testified that during the September 5 meeting, “where President Zelensky asked about the security assistance,” that “although both Senators stressed bipartisan Congressional support for Ukraine, Senator Johnson cautioned President Zelensky that President Trump has a negative view of Ukraine and that President Zelensky would have a difficult time overcoming it.”

This is no small revelation. It is a case of the chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs essentially telling Zelensky that he needed to do something to put Ukraine in a better light in Trump’s eyes.

Three days following Johnson’s “difficult time” comment, Holmes said that he became aware from Ambassador William Taylor that a “specific and concrete” deal had been worked out where President Zelensky would schedule a CNN interview and “personally commit to a specific investigation of President Trump’s political rival on a cable news channel.”

Holmes further testified that the CNN interview had been scheduled for September 12.

Imagine if Johnson had confronted Trump, saying that the President had no right to hold up aid . . .

But on September 7, the White House became aware of the whistleblower complaint, and quickly adopted the “no quid pro quo!” mantra. Soon after, the hold on the military aid was released.

The CNN interview never took place.

Johnson not only was aware of the extortion, but actively participated in it by personally applying pressure on Zelensky with his own “difficult time” language.

Imagine if, after learning from the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union that U.S. aid to Ukraine was held up because of Trump’s extortion scheme, and then personally confirming with Trump that the aid was in fact being held up, Johnson had done the obviously right thing.

Imagine if, as chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Johnson had confronted Trump, saying that the President had no right to hold up aid that was desperately needed by Ukraine and already authorized by Congress.

The President would likely have been forced to back down.

Instead, Johnson acted as an accomplice to Trump in the commission of his crimes.