Mark Meadows

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

This Intel Community leaks like a sieve—of course this President and his team are going to restrict access to calls with sensitive/classified information. As they should. — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

Wow. Great reporting from Sean. It looks like the IC removed the first-hand knowledge requirement for whistleblowers... just days before the Ukraine whistleblower (who conveniently wasn’t a first-hand witness) came forward. This demands answers. — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

Reminder, as this tweet points out: what we’ve seen is the Ukrainians weren’t aware aid was being reviewed during the call. It wasn’t until a month later. So President Trump was “extorting” Ukraine with something they... didn’t know about? The sham narrative is collapsing. — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

RT @realDonaldTrump: https://t.co/TAJLOrpFZe — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

RT @LouDobbs: Congressman Meadows is right, and he joins us on LDT tonight at 7 Eastern! #MAGA @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/RaPaY058ls — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

This continued suggestion from Washington Democrats that the WH is "covering up" the Ukraine issue (when the WH published the documents) is about as serious as the time they also tried to claim a cover-up after the WH released the full Mueller report As in—it is not serious — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

RT @kilmeade: .@FoxandFriends: Ohio Republican Rep. @Jim_Jordan and North Carolina Republican @RepMarkMeadows weigh in on President @realDo… — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

As my Democrat colleagues project outrage, please remember: they announced an impeachment inquiry *before* having read the call transcript, *without* knowing the details of the complaint The details are not relevant to them. They are an impeachment party in search of validation. — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

If all we’re going to hear from is a witness spreading third-hand hearsay... There's no reason to view this leaked call as anything other than a continued effort from within to undermine both POTUS and an imminent FISA IG report, expected to be damning toward the Intel Community — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

Lost in all of the Ukraine controversy: this is such an egregious breach of trust with the IC. How can a President exercise his constitutional duties if his calls are being politically leaked? How can foreign leaders trust us if they know this could happen? It is appalling. — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

I’ve read the ‘whistleblower’ complaint. It’s a collection of speculative, third-hand accounts with press clippings and no serious evidence. The call transcript itself shows the complaint to be largely inaccurate. We’ve seen this movie before, folks. It’s Russian collusion 2.0. — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

RT @MZHemingway: Opening statement here is🔥: "I want to congratulate the Democrats on the rollout of their latest information warfare opera… — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

RT @HolmesJosh: The “will you do me a favor” quotes attributed to Trump asking about Hunter Biden will outlast this entire Ukraine controve… — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

Wow. The full Ukraine call transcript shows @realDonaldTrump asking Ukraine's President for a "favor," helping investigate 2016 election interference. CNN cut the clip making it look like the "favor" was about investigating Biden. Wow. — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

Adam Schiff spent his entire press conference today imposing his own bad-faith, political interpretations on the Trump-Ukraine call. His argument: “Ukraine knew what this President wanted.” Well here’s the Ukraine President, just now: “I think you read it—nobody pushed me.” — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

In case you don’t believe the transcript, which showed zero evidence of quid pro quo or @realDonaldTrump pressuring anyone... Here’s Ukraine President Zelensky’s interpretation of the call: “I think you read it—that nobody pushed me” — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

RT @RepDLesko: Transcript is out. Here's what we know: - No quid pro quo - No 8 mentions of Biden - It was the Ukrainian President who br… — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

We would all be better off if we had an honest conversation about what Democrats are trying to impeach President Trump for—that is, the high crime and misdemeanor of winning the 2016 election — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

As the left now tries to move the goalposts, remember that for days, all we heard was that @realDonaldTrump offered quid pro quo to trade foreign aid in exchange for investigating the Bidens. It was wrong. Again. Another day, another conspiracy theory debunked. — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

RT @RepJeffDuncan: None of what Democrats said happened on the call between @realDonaldTrump & Ukrainian President Zelensky was true. No qu… — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

Seeing some try to spin this section of the call into "quid pro quo" and it's laughable. To put it mildly. — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

Blatantly false and misleading tweet. The "favor" President Trump mentions is in regards to helping investigate 2016 election meddling. Only after President Zelensky brings up Rudy Giuliani and "the investigation" does the Biden conversation happen. — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

So we're clear, the "favor" being referenced here is that Ukraine look into 2016 election meddling (which involved Russia and Ukraine)... something Democrats have demanded the President do for 3 years now! — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

Seeing some political conflation about two sections of the report: The "favor" section of the call is referencing "crowdstrike," or an investigation into election interference. This is NOT the same thing as the Biden section. Conflating the two is misleading and irresponsible — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

Remember yesterday when we were told President Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate Biden's son? 8 times? And offered quid pro quo in exchange? None of that was true. They did it again. Just like collusion. Just like obstruction. Same old story. — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

I've read the transcript and the Democrat spin was wrong... again - President Zelensky initiated the Giuliani convo and asked the WH to send him to Ukraine - ZERO discussion of foreign aid quid pro quo That's it? THAT'S what Democrats are impeaching on? Give me a break. — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

So we are all clear what's happening: House Democrats are supposedly beginning an impeachment inquiry, and building it on an anonymous secondhand complaint they haven't seen... which describes a call transcript that they haven't read. You can't make it up. — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

POTUS says he's releasing the full transcript of the Ukraine call, and amazingly Democrats now say the whistleblower complaint is more important Folks, the 'whistleblower' wasn't on the call They think a secondhand account of the call will tell you more than the *actual call* — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

This Ukraine story is peak Swamp in action We have actual video evidence of Joe Biden acknowledging quid pro quo corruption involving his son and Ukraine But no—the left instead focuses on Trump, armed with only secondhand hearsay and zero evidence This is not serious — PolitiTweet.org

Mark Meadows @MarkMeadows

Reminder: this is how Washington Democrats view impeachment "I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this President, he will get re-elected" https://t.co/5CuqElHHZz — PolitiTweet.org