Mark Meadows

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

Question: "Mr. Morrison, on the July 25th call, you were in the room. Did anything concern you on the call? Morrison: "No." — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

"I was never involved in anything I considered to be bribery at all. Or extortion." - Ambassador Kurt Volker — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

This exchange between @Jim_Jordan and Lt. Col. Vindman is quite something. About why Vindman chose to go outside his chain of command to report the 7/25 phone call. "It was a busy week"... a lawyer told him not to tell anyone... can't name mysterious IC person he told... etc https://t.co/qC6gnM6m7l — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

RT @FiveThirtyEight: Volker defended Trump at several key moments in his closed-door testimony. He said no quid pro quo was ever communicat… — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

Timothy Morrison told us in his deposition he was worried the Trump/Zelensky phone call would be leaked from the inside and used by Washington, D.C. insiders for nefarious, unfair political purposes. Mr. Morrison was absolutely right. — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

Bill Taylor/George Kent: Never met POTUS, weren't on the 7/25 call Yovanovitch: “I cannot bring any firsthand knowledge to... the phone call or delay of aid.” Vindman: "I've never had any contact with POTUS" This is the testimony Democrats are relying on for impeachment. — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

RT @CongressmanHice: Three years later, the trial is still going and no fault has been found. This "impeachment inquiry" is a mockery of j… — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

RT @politicalelle: Hearsay can build a really unimpressive house of cards. We’re seeing that now. https://t.co/nZkHYl2gZY — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

Remarkably, in attempting to build their impeachment case, House Democrats are using yet another witness who has never met or talked to @realDonaldTrump. They are relying on the witness' disputed interpretation... of someone he's never worked directly with. This is a farce. https://t.co/ljE7SvXdAW — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

RT @Jim_Jordan: The facts are on the President’s side. The process certainly is not. https://t.co/mskswF0e3S — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

Democrats keep asking questions like this one--and they've done it for 3 hearings now. They're trying to spin disagreements on policy between @realDonaldTrump and unelected bureaucrats into supporting evidence for impeachment. — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

Devin Nunes sums it up well: "After today, the Democrats are no closer to impeachment than they were 3 years ago." That "3 years" is important, because we all know it. They've been intent on impeaching @realDonaldTrump for 3 years. — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

It is frankly stunning that the Democrats are building an impeachment case off of an *interpretation* of a call from someone who has never met POTUS, never talked to POTUS, and who’s interpretation is directly disputed by multiple others who have. Stunning. — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

RT @JordanSchachtel: Jim Jordan is a fantastic advocate for the truth, and that's why Fusion GPS has specifically and constantly targeted h… — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

.@Jim_Jordan asks Col. Vindman why he didn’t go to his boss, Tim Morrison, and instead went to a lawyer. Vindman says it was a busy week... and that eventually, the lawyer told him not to go to anyone else. To say this impeachment case is collapsing is an understatement. — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

Here's the text of the deposition question and answer. Read it. Bottom line: the pretext for this hearing is baseless. @realDonaldTrump didn't demand a thing. https://t.co/opEs25knRg — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

IN FACT: when Col. Vindman was pressed on his characterization of the call as a "demand" in his deposition (p. 256), this is what he said: "I think people want to hear, you know, what they have as already preconceived notions... I guess you can interpret it in different ways." — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

What this hearing boils down to: Col. Vindman claimed to be alarmed at the 7/25 call because he felt the conversation was a "demand." It was not. Read the call transcript. Note the phrases like "if that's possible," "if you can look into it," "whatever you can do." — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

This is an excellent job by @RepChrisStewart. He's getting to the heart of the issue -- that the characterization of the 7/25 phone call as a "demand" (by both Chairman Schiff and Lt. Col. Vindman) is total nonsense. We can all read the transcript. There is zero demand there. — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

In his deposition, page 154 and page 259, Col. Vindman said himself he was “reporting to chain of command.” Morrison was his senior, and he didn’t know about it. You’re pushing back against Vindman’s words. Not mine. — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

.@RepBradWenstrup highlighting how Lt. Col. Vindman notably went outside the chain of command to address the 7/25 call... going to counsel instead of his superior, Tim Morrison. (Morrison, by the way, says there was nothing illegal or improper about the call). — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

Adam Schiff just DEEPLY mischaracterized Gordon Sondland's statement to Ukraine. Sondland did not tell Ukraine they would have to begin investigations to receive the aid. Sondland told Congress he believed it was "likely" the case, but that he DID NOT KNOW. — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

RT @RepBrianBabin: Oh look, House Democrats have another "star witness" testifying who never actually interacted with @realDonaldTrump. Tha… — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

RT @jennybethm: You know @RepMarkMeadows instead of talking to people w/ no contact w/ President of the United States, Dems could #ReadTheT… — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

Adam Schiff just opened part 2 of this hearing by pushing back on whether the witnesses have "firsthand knowledge" of anything on Biden, Burisma, etc. So "firsthand knowledge" evidently counts on matters implicating Democrats—but not when relating to @realDonaldTrump. — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

"I've never had any contact with the president of the United States" - Lt. Col. Vindman The Democrats' key witnesses have never even spoken to the man they're claiming know the motives of — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

Vindman not wanting to discuss who in the intelligence community he talked to about this whole thing. Schiff cuts off question. Very interesting. — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

I am struck by Schiff's attempt to characterize President Trump's conversation with President Zelensky as a "demand." It was not a demand. Note Vindman's quote when pressed on this characterization in his deposition. Page 256. "I guess you can interpret it in different ways." — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

We all have the transcript of the call Schiff is asking Vindman to describe for us. We can all read it because the White House released it. There is no “demand” for an investigation and no political link mentioned at all. This is nonsense. — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

Jennifer Williams, responsible for attending meetings with and prepping the VP, testified that at the Pence-Zelensky meeting, there was no mention of investigations. That's one of six—SIX—interactions where no political link was mentioned. Because there was none. — PolitiTweet.org