I applaud @POTUS for following through on a campaign promise he made to millions of voters across the country. #ParisAgreement
@POTUS The #ParisAccord is a bad deal for the American people—it hampers economic growth, burdens job creators, and stifles innovation.
@POTUS We all agree that we must be good stewards of the earth, but it doesn’t require a treaty never ratified by #Congress to accomplish that.
@POTUS Time and time again we've seen that businesses will adapt to consumer demand to use more environmentally friendly practices.
@POTUS There is no need to cripple entire industries with sweeping regulations.
@POTUS Today’s decision is another step toward accomplishing the President's long-term goal: putting the interests of the American worker first.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Mark Meadows

Mark Meadows Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MarkMeadows

10 Dec 19
A thought on impeachment: Democrats case has real gaps. The holes are blatant. Witnesses having no evidence. Firsthand witnesses who dispute the allegations. Etc.

For a situation like that, time is the Democrats’ worst enemy. Because there’s key questions they can’t answer.
An example: if there was a political bribery scheme going on, like Democrats say, how did it not come up ONCE in FIVE meetings between US-Ukraine over the relevant time period? That makes zero sense. You’re telling me Ukraine was extorted, and they never asked? Or mentioned it?
That’s just one example of plenty. Sondland is *central* to their case, for instance—cited 600+ times in their report. He’s admitted he has no evidence beyond assumptions. That’s their star witness. Huge problem.
Read 5 tweets
9 Dec 19
THREAD: You will probably see plenty of spin and headlines today claiming the FBI is exonerated in this report. That is laughable, to put it lightly. The report eviscerates senior officials who broke rules and abused power.

Let's go over some of the details.
For starters, the "no bias" talking point you see is misdirection from the left. See this line, from the IG:

"Our role in this review was not to second-guess discretionary judgments by Department personnel about whether to open an investigation"
If you see someone harping on the "bias" point, they are giving you a broad, misapplied talking point to distract from the specifics within the IG report that are damning.
Read 11 tweets
4 Dec 19
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.
How about another? Here's Noah Feldman on impeachment, March 2017. Not even TWO months post inauguration.
Mr. Feldman also coauthored an article in 2017, looking at things to possibly impeach Trump for.
Read 4 tweets
4 Dec 19
The House Democrats' impeachment report is 300 pages of nonsense, with far too many problems to address individually. But let's go over a few of them...
1) Up front, Democrats released this report to the public around 2:00pm. Again, it's 300 pages. They're having the full Intelligence Committee vote on the report the same day... just a few hours later. Should be an automatic red flag.
2) Democrats claim @realDonaldTrump "demanded" Ukraine investigations. They build their case on this using Alexander Vindman, who said he interpreted the call this way too.

The "demand" characterization is ridiculous, for many reasons. @RepChrisStewart lays out a few.
Read 14 tweets
5 Nov 19
You see a theme throughout these transcripts of the need to clean up corruption. Ambassador Yovanovitch laid it out: President Trump had a “deep rooted skepticism” about Ukraine corruption, and sending taxpayer funds to a corrupt nation.

She shared the concern on corruption
Gordon Sondland explained further: President Trump wanted Ukraine to root out corruption.

“I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing... to do what he ran on” (clean up corruption.)
Set aside the complete lack of a deliverable and the fact that Ukraine wasn't even aware aid was being withheld till later. The notion that this was some sort of political 'quid pro quo' is not backed up by the facts. It is nonsense.
Read 4 tweets
26 Apr 18
It sure looks like James Comey misled Congress and the American people--at times under oath. Here are 5 questions Director Comey needs to answer. My op-ed--
washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds…
Question 1: Did Comey and his FBI improperly coordinate with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the Department of Justice during the height of the Clinton email investigation?

He denied any coordination under oath. Evidence suggests this is not true.
Question 2: Why did Comey leave out pertinent facts when he briefed then-President-elect Trump on the Russian dossier?

He told President-elect Trump nothing of Christopher Steele's credibility issues or of the dossier's origin as a Democrat paid-for campaign document
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!