In a series of tweets on Tuesday night, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., picked apart several sections of the impeachment investigation report released by House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff earlier that day.

In a statement accompanying the release of the 300-page document, Adam Schiff, along with Oversight Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., said that the "evidence is clear" that the president "used the power of his office to pressure Ukraine into announcing investigations" that were "designed to benefit his 2020 presidential reelection campaign," that he "conditioned official acts on the public announcement of these investigations," and that he "engaged in categorical and unprecedented obstruction in order to cover-up his misconduct."

Shortly after the House Intelligence Committee voted to approve the report and send it to the House Judiciary Committee in a party-line vote, Meadows, the former House Freedom Caucus chairman, countered several of the report's assertions with public evidence turned up in the process of the House's impeachment probe.

Meadows' lengthy Twitter thread begins with a critique of the timeline of the report's release before delving into the various points made in the document, which he called "300 pages of nonsense, with far too many problems to address individually."

"Democrats can write what they want, but they can't provide any serious evidence supporting this latest conspiracy theory. And they know it," Meadows wrote in conclusion. "This Democrat impeachment effort is (and will continue to be) baseless and nakedly partisan. Americans will see through it."

Some highlights of the rebuttal:

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. — Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) December 4, 2019

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. pic.twitter.com/om6xhHozCT — Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) December 4, 2019

Additionally, Tim Morrison, Vindman's SUPERIOR, testified and directly undermined Vindman's interpretation. Morrison says there was NO "demand" at all. pic.twitter.com/waaWNQYCo4 — Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) December 4, 2019

In fact, Vindman actually undermined his *own* claim. Note page 256 of his deposition, where he gets pressed on whether Trump "demanded" anything: Vindman eventually admits: "I guess you can interpret it in different ways." Trump didn't demand anything. pic.twitter.com/51IXPHVzvA — Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) December 4, 2019

3) Democrats rely enormously on Gordon Sondland. His name appears over 600 times (!) in their report. FLASHBACK: When Gordon Sondland was asked if he had any evidence @realDonaldTrump tied aid to investigations, Sondland said no—"other than my own presumption." pic.twitter.com/4Ff4QHkimG — Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) December 4, 2019

So again, for the entire reason we're here—the accusation that President Trump tied aid and political investigations—Gordon Sondland, one of the Democrats' most featured witnesses (cited 600+ times), admits he has no evidence of it. That is stunning. — Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) December 4, 2019

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. — Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) December 4, 2019

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. pic.twitter.com/kt3JuLIkG9 — Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) December 4, 2019

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. — Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) December 4, 2019

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. — Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) December 4, 2019

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. — Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) December 4, 2019

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. — Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) December 4, 2019