Deleted tweet detection is currently running at reduced
capacity due to changes to the Twitter API. Some tweets that have been
deleted by the tweet author may not be labeled as deleted in the PolitiTweet
interface.
Showing page 81 of 162.
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
Jonathan Turley, not a Trump supporter, looks at Democrats and delivers one of the most powerful quotes of the hearing so far: "If you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It's YOUR abuse of power." https://t.co/H37euhMP3X — PolitiTweet.org
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
RT @TCPigott: CBS News' Major Garrett: Democrats' selective questioning reinforces that Democrats don’t even have a “minimum standard of fa… — PolitiTweet.org
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
Jonathan Turley nails it: "Impeachment has to be based on proof, not presumptions" The glaring flaw in House Democrats' case. — PolitiTweet.org
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
Since it was brought up again today, and Democrats are still evidently trying to argue @realDonaldTrump obstructed Bob Mueller... Here's @RepDougCollins asking Mueller if his 2 year investigation was ever stopped, curtailed, or hindered. Mueller: "No" https://t.co/EWrgv5SNVC — PolitiTweet.org
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
By my count, Prof. Jonathan Turley (who voted against Trump, but opposes impeachment) got 1 question from Democrats in an hour, and they cut him off during his answer Democrats used virtually all their time to let 3 liberal law professors opine on why Trump should be impeached — PolitiTweet.org
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
RT @RepAndyBiggsAZ: "I'm concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger." - Jonathan… — PolitiTweet.org
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
RT @SteveScalise: WATCH → Legal expert testifying before Nadler's Judiciary Committee says this would be the first impeachment in history w… — PolitiTweet.org
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
RT @RepDLesko: Today's hearing is all about asking liberal law professors who clearly oppose President @realDonaldTrump their thoughts on i… — PolitiTweet.org
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
Democrats are holding a national T.V. hearing to ask three liberal law professors why President Trump should be impeached. Really something. — PolitiTweet.org
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
RT @RepMarkMeadows: In many ways, Mr. Feldman is the perfect witness for Democrats here. He's been looking for any reason to impeach @realD… — PolitiTweet.org
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
In many ways, Mr. Feldman is the perfect witness for Democrats here. He's been looking for any reason to impeach @realDonaldTrump for 3 years now. Just like House Democrats have been, too. — PolitiTweet.org
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
Mr. Feldman also coauthored an article in 2017, looking at things to possibly impeach Trump for. https://t.co/Axy6h57XCB — PolitiTweet.org
Jacob Weisberg @jacobwe
Which offenses can we impeach Trump for? @NoahRFeldman and I take a deep dive in the latest @nybooks. https://t.co/e8vjI3yfl6
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
How about another? Here's Noah Feldman on impeachment, March 2017. Not even TWO months post inauguration. https://t.co/FMiq3Ng48W — PolitiTweet.org
Jill Goldenziel @JillGoldenziel
Yes, a Tweetstorm can be an impeachable offense. https://t.co/nInV4oXGjy via @BV @NoahRFeldman
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
In case you were inclined to believe the Democrats' suggestion that their witnesses are unbiased, here's one of them—Noah Feldman—building the case for impeaching President Trump in April, 2017. Not even 3 months after inauguration. — PolitiTweet.org
Slate's Trumpcast @realTrumpcast
Today: @jacobwe and @NoahRFeldman begin to build the case for the impeachment of Donald Trump: https://t.co/zQq2FzGG4v
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
RT @KatiePavlich: So we've gone from bribery to treason. Okay. — PolitiTweet.org
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
Keep this in mind when Democrats inevitably pivot to obstruction for this case. “Obstruction” = “We didn’t get the result we wanted” — PolitiTweet.org
Mark Meadows @RepMarkMeadows
The President provided Mueller millions of pages in documents, hundreds of witnesses for interviews, and Mueller HI… https://t.co/My3LmiMDew
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
The President provided Mueller millions of pages in documents, hundreds of witnesses for interviews, and Mueller HIMSELF testified the 2 year investigation was never hindered. And yet, Chairman Nadler still repeats the talking point that Mueller was “obstructed.” Ridiculous. — PolitiTweet.org
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
A month of private depositions, 2 weeks of public hearings, no serious evidence for impeachment, and now today we’re holding more hearings. This is not serious. End the charade. — PolitiTweet.org
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
RT @RepLeeZeldin: Dems are so hell bent on impeachment, they keep forgetting three pesky FACTS... 1. Pres Zelensky & his top aides didn't… — PolitiTweet.org
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
RT @NateOnTheHill: Letter: @Jim_Jordan and @RepMarkMeadows call on oversight chair Carolyn Maloney to ask IG Horowitz to testify after rele… — PolitiTweet.org
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
RT @RobManess: Threading the nonsense of Schiff’s 300 page #impeachment tome https://t.co/FltV5xbNmU — PolitiTweet.org
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
Read this. It’s an article criticizing @realDonaldTrump for asking questions of experts in briefings—like why we’re spending money, what resources we’re using, etc. In other words: the President is doing exactly what Americans elected him to do. Good. — PolitiTweet.org
Curt Mills @CurtMills
Oh, the humanity https://t.co/krkH9wi9uX
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
RT @stranahan: This is a GREAT thread by @RepMarkMeadows. We will discuss it tomorrow on @FaultLinesRadio. https://t.co/LSy1ir15Fn — PolitiTweet.org
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
Bottom line: Democrats can write what they want, but they can't provide any serious evidence supporting this latest conspiracy theory. And they know it. This Democrat impeachment effort is (and will continue to be) baseless and nakedly partisan. Americans will see through it. — PolitiTweet.org
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
To recap: A) There was no "demand" B) No Democrat witness had any firsthand evidence of an aid/political investigations link C) Multiple witnesses who spoke to POTUS say: there was no political link D) A political link didn't come up once in FIVE U.S.-Zelensky interactions. — PolitiTweet.org
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
Here are those 5 interactions, if you're curious. 7/25: Trump/Zelensky phone call 7/26: Volker & Taylor meet Zelensky 8/27: Bolton meets Zelensky 9/1: VP Pence meets Zelensky 9/5: Sens. Johnson, Murphy meet Zelensky Not *one time* was an aid/investigation link discussed. — PolitiTweet.org
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
6) Between July 18 (when aid got paused) and Sept 11 (when aid was released), there were 5 interactions between President Zelensky and U.S. officials. A link between aid/investigations was discussed in ZERO of those interactions. 0/5. The Democrat report virtually ignores this. — PolitiTweet.org
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
Tim Morrison confirmed Volker's account. In other words, these Democrat-led impeachment hearings were one career bureaucrat after another saying (without evidence) they "believed" there was a political quid pro quo - while officials in the room say it never happened. — PolitiTweet.org
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
5) Ambassador Volker shredded the Democrats' case, and they ignored it. Remember: Volker said @realDonaldTrump never told him of an aid/political investigations link, and Ukraine never mentioned it either. Mind you, Volker actually spoke to POTUS. He had firsthand knowledge. https://t.co/kt3JuLIkG9 — PolitiTweet.org
Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows
4) But it wasn't just Sondland. No Democrat witness brought any firsthand knowledge of Trump decisions. Taylor, Kent, Yovanovitch, Vindman, Hill, etc. None. Not one could provide any firsthand information of Trump tying aid to political investigations. — PolitiTweet.org
