President Donald Trump began Wednesday morning with an all-too-common Twitter rant. This time, he targeted the swing states of Michigan and Nevada.
Trump falsely claimed that the two states' expanded voter access measures were illegal.
He threatened to withdraw relief funding from both.
The impeachment proceedings against Trump may feel like a lifetime ago, but it's possible this situation sounds familiar.
That's because it came up as a hypothetical.
Trump was impeached for withholding congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine on the condition that the Ukrainian president to announce investigations into presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his son's business dealings.
As evidence and testimony began to stack up against the President, Republican lawmakers said that Trump was just weeding out so-called corruption in Ukraine before sending aid already approved by Congress. It was, they claimed, simply a coincidence that the investigation Trump was demanding involved his opponent.
Stanford Law Professor Pamela Karlan used her Constitutional law knowledge to testify before the House Judiciary Committee whether or not Trump's actions merited impeachment.
Spoiler alert: they did.
"What would you think if, when your governor asked the federal government for the disaster assistance that Congress has provided, the President responded, 'I would like you to do us a favor.' I'll... send the disaster relief once you brand my opponent a criminal."
As the Washington Post's Greg Sargent pointed out, this is the exact situation we're facing right now: Trump is threatening to withhold aid from governors if they expand voting accessibility.
People were stunned at Karlan's prescience.
By keeping Trump in office, Senate Republicans endorsed this behavior.
As Karlan warned, this is a threat to national security.
For the record: Trump voted by mail in the Florida primary.