Barring the appearance of unexpected information, U.S. Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) said Friday that he is prepared to vote to impeach President Donald Trump at the conclusion of the House’s ongoing inquiry.
“The evidence I’ve seen is a clear breach of the oath of office and an abuse of the public trust in pursuit of a private advantage,” Welch told Seven Days, adding that he would “reserve final judgement until all the information is in.”
As a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Welch spent the previous two weeks hearing testimony from civil servants who described the president’s efforts to secure a Ukrainian government investigation of a political rival, former vice president Joe Biden.
Welch said he had been struck by two things during the hearings. “One is how little the president cared about the real issues in Ukraine,” he said. “He only cared about getting the investigations.”
Welch’s second observation was how dedicated the witnesses were to doing the right thing. “They are so inspiring. They’re professional. They are committed to doing their duty. They don’t seek the limelight but are extraordinarily professional and competent, and they’re very brave in a matter-of-fact way,” he said. “They are regularly trashed by President Trump, but my goodness they were extraordinary.”
According to Welch, the Intelligence Committee has not yet made “a definitive decision” as to whether it would hold more hearings or call more witnesses. But, he said, “In my view, we actually have the information we need to proceed.” The next step, he said, would be for the committee to prepare a report with recommendations and, pursuant to a vote, send it to the House Judiciary Committee. The latter committee is expected to draft articles of impeachment, which would require approval by the full House.
Though Welch said he found the hearings “extremely focused and disciplined” — and largely free of typical congressional grandstanding — he wasn’t sure whether they would change minds. “We did our job as best as we could, but it’s in the context of a modern media situation where the conspiracy theories penetrate into the mainstream.”
As for whether any Republican members of Congress had been persuaded to support impeachment? “I don’t think so,” he said. “Not yet.”
During his final opportunity to speak at Thursday’s hearing, Welch opted to deliver prepared remarks rather than question the witnesses. In his speech, he said that the testimony he’d heard “reaffirms a very central fact: President Trump conditioned our foreign policy and national security on getting a valuable political benefit from Ukraine.” He added, “It’s equally clear that President Trump has launched a coverup — a disinformation campaign — to hide this abuse of power from the American people.”
Pausing for dramatic effect, Welch said, “Now the president and even some members of this committee are pretending this is normal. It is not. It must never be. No other president has betrayed his office like this by putting his own small political interest above our national interest and our national security.”
Disclosure: Paul Heintz worked as Peter Welch’s communications director from November 2008 to March 2011.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Peter Welch is thoroughly partisan, totally leftist and hopelessly entrenched in Washington D.C. swamp politics. What has become of Democrat party?
“Devin Nunes and Jim Jordan are thoroughly partisan, totally reactionary, and hopeless entrenched in Washington DC swamp politics. What has become of Republican Party?”
Just askin.
Trump behaves like a guilty man: blocking people from testifying , defying Congressional subpoenas , and lying thru his teeth. When it comes to Putin and what Russia has done Trump behaves like a man who has been compromised and leveraged, he bows before Putin and makes excuses for him, often repeating Russian talking points. The only thing more pathetic and dishonest than Trump are the un-American cowards and sycophants who defend him, either in Congress, the media , or with their votes.
No mountain of evidence will move Congressional Republicans to vote to either impeach or remove Trump from office, they have sold their souls to Trump, Steven Miller, and corrupt AG Bill Barr. Republicans have shown the world want it is they want: it is a Right Wing/ White Supremacist/Faux Christian fascism. Their desire for this is not new, it has been there all along, Trump has let them bring it out into the light.
Term limits please. I’ve had my fill of old, bald white men.
Trump meeting with Putin:
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/starwa…
What is thy wish, my master?
So Jimmy, ya want newer old bald white men ?
Hee, hee, hee… Who’s to judge Dick?
“Term limits please. I’ve had my fill of old, bald white men.” – Jimmy
That’s racist hate speech Jimmy. 7Days, how can you allow this???
The great irony here is that Jimmy is likely white himself and just hating on himself and his own because it’s trendy.
Welch should talk about other people “violating their oath of office”. Look in a mirror buddy. Every day.
Trump is nothing but a liar, traitor and dictator and the Republican party is just trying to cover it up! Nunes was in Ukraine at the time they had the mid term elections, they should have an inquiry why he was there….
VPR has a slogan “Be brave ask questions”, so let’s do it. Unfortunately our Representative Peter Welch has failed Vermonters and our country in NOT joining his two Democratic House colleagues in a bipartisan vote AGAINST proceeding with this impeachment charade. Through his actions Peter has firmly demonstrated he’s part of the cadre which has the goal of keeping American’s divided in the hope of keeping political power, at the expense of what’s best for America. When all the facts are in, not hear say or feelings, when all the facts come out, Peter’s lack of leadership will be shown to be on the wrong side of history. What is at the core of all this grandstanding? Impeach President Trump. It’s been the goal of the Dems even before Trump was sworn in. When all the investigations by the various House and Senate committees into Russian meddling in our elections didn’t establish any connections to President Trump, the Dems launched the Mueller probe. After years of the MSM and Adam Schiff in particular, touting “we have evidence of collusion”, the Mueller probe found no evidence to support the “Trump collusion” allegation. Afterwards the Dems switched narratives to seek impeachment over this latest non-issue that being aid to Ukraine.
So let’s look critically at Peter’s role in all of this. Peter’s quoted in the article as saying, “I’d be glad to have the person who started it all come in and testify,” Welch said on Nov. 13. “President Trump is welcome to take a seat right there.” Seems Peter got some buzz over this and it may have gone to head. So my question is, the transcript of the conversation was made public, we can all read what was said, what’s to testify to? Why parade all these witnesses in front of us, spouting second hand hearsay when the transcript it out there?
Peter’s said, “You want to investigate Joe Biden? You want to investigate Hunter Biden? Go at it. Do it, do it hard, do it dirty. Do it the way you do it just don’t do it by asking a foreign leader to help you in your campaign.” Wow, what the heck is that? Peter are you aware we have a “Treaty with Ukraine on mutual, legal assistance in criminal matters. So Peter here’s my question, if you’re seeking to have a new roof on your house, do you investigate the credentials of any prospective contractor? Peter, can we agree that Ukraine had a reputation for being full of corruption? Can we agree that the current President of Ukraine ran for office seeking to clean up corruption? Then wouldn’t it be logical for any US president to want to know if America’s tax dollars in the form of foreign aid were being squandered? Would you want to know that our foreign aid wasn’t being funneled back to the son of the former Vice President of the United States in the form of being paid $80,000.00 a month for sitting on the board of a Ukrainian company for which he has no experience? Really Peter, so exactly who would you request a “favor” of, to check into that? Peter does it concern you that it’s been reported Ukrainian nationals were the largest contributors to the Clinton foundation? Peter are you troubled that a Ukrainian internal investigation which determined Ukraine medaled in our 2016 elections in favor of Hillary Clinton? That Ukraine was solicited and provided the basis Paul Manafort was convicted on, which was outside of anything to do with the Trump campaign? Peter, are you aware of Politico’s article with the headline “Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire”.
Next quote of Peter’s I’d like to address, “I didn’t hear an answer to the question as to whether it’s proper for the president of the United States to demand a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent,” So here’s my question Peter, why did you choose to use the word “demand” instead of what the transcript says the President actually requested, which was ” I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.” So Peter if I asked you to do me a favor would you consider it a DEMAND?
Next quoted exchange was between Peter and Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union. Peter prefaced his line of questions this way, “if it’s wrong for a mayor, a governor or even a president to use their authority to seek information about a political opponent.” Through a line of hypothetical questioning, Peter extracted a “yes” from Sondland that’s it’s wrong. Wow, so how does Peter reconcile the Steele Dossier solicited by Hillary, the DNC and it appears with the knowledge of the Obama White House. Inquiring minds would like to know. So now Peter gets to beat his chest having convinced himself Trump is guilty of an impeachable offense. But wait, Peter leaves out all testimony of Sondland that exonerates President Trump of any quid pro quo. Check out Sondland’s responses to Michael Turner’s questions. Sundland testified that no one on this planet told him Trump was tying aid to any investigation. Also Sondland chose in his opening statement of 23 pages to exclude that he directly asked President Trump, “What do you want from Ukraine Mr. President”. To that Sondland stated the President said, “I want nothing. I want no quid-pro-quo. I want President Zelensky to do the right thing. I want him to do what he ran on, (which is fighting corruption. Huh…. funny how that doesn’t make it into the MSM. Peter goes on to say Ukraine, “who desperately needed the release of that aid, who desperately needed the White House meeting.” So the fact is the Obama administration didn’t provide lethal aid to Ukraine, why? It’s not clear to me the timing of the aid was a “desperate” situation. It’s been reported Ukraine wasn’t even aware during any phone conversations aid was delayed. So Peter why create the “desperate” impression?
Peter has demonstrated by his actions he’s not looking out for what’s best for America. Folks this is not journalism, it’s rather one sided biased propaganda.
In closing I’d say we cannot trust at face value what the MSM or any politician tells us. It’s up to each of us as individuals to put the time and energy into getting at the truth. I’d suggest if you consider yourself a person of good will, a person who seeks the truth behind all the political BS, you do a web search on the phrase, “a good American Bill Binney”, watch the video, I’m confident you’ll agree it was well worth your time.
Welch is quoted as saying, “reaffirms a very central fact: President Trump conditioned our foreign policy and national security on getting a valuable political benefit from Ukraine.”.
Ah…. that may be Welch’s opinion, but the specific evidence? People’s “impressions” don’t count.as evidence, sorry.
Another Welch quote, “It’s equally clear that President Trump has launched a coverup — a disinformation campaign — to hide this abuse of power from the American people.”
Ah, what evidence does Welch offer to support that conclusion? So, if President Trump was trying to cover up something or have a “disinformation campaign” how would that work, since the transcript was made public.
If the Dems are so bent on impeaching Trump and this goes to the Senate for a trial, Schiff is going to have to explain under oath how his office coached the so called whistle blower. Why the rules were changed to allow someone purporting second hand knowledge and hearsay, to file a complaint in the first place. The whistle blower will be outed, he’s already outed if you care to do the research. But heh… it’ll make interesting TV to watch the Dems implode when Trump gets elected for another term. Enjoy the show!
For those who click the thumbs down icon on anyone’s posting, make your case to the contrary. I know, I know it’s easy to simply click a button to place a “vote” to someone’s efforts to determine actual facts on both sides of the argument. Clearly the author of this article is a pro Welch’er. The article may be accurate as far as quotes go, but it’s entirely one sided, eh? So…. I’d invite you to actually enter the debate with evidence, or it’s best to keep your thumb in your pocket, because you add nothing to the conversation..
Re: ‘For those who click the thumbs down icon on anyone’s posting, make your case to the contrary.’
Hmm. The deafening sound of silent specificity…not even the oft employed presumption or ad hominem attack.
Thumbs up to you FindGeo.
P.S. The Democrats are going to welch (pun intended) on their promise to impeach. More likely is a partisan feet-warming vote to ‘censor’.
At least the congress managed to spend copious amounts of time and money doing the people’s business (infrastructure, trade agreements, immigration reform). Not!
Impeachment involves bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. It is clear from President Trump himself that he attempted a bribe by withholding needed Congressionally approved military aid from a country under attack by Russia. In return he asked for a “favor” involving this foreign government investigating a leading domestic political rival and opposing political party in order to advance his own interests.
The majority of Democratic members in the House and the leadership, despite continued pushing of bounds by President Trump, resisted impeachment until in order to fulfill their own Constitutional duties Trump, by his own actions, gave them no choice but to proceed.
Re: “…gave them no choice but to proceed”.
Right on que. The devil made them do it because “it’s clear”. No proof. But it was ‘clear’.
So, Victor Shokin, Ukraine’s prosecutor-general at the time, filed an affidavit stating that he began an investigation into Burisma (with Hunter Biden on its board). Then he was fired, ostensibly for not investigating corruption. Never mind that the U.S. government, under the direction of Hunter Biden’s father, Vice President Joe Biden, withheld $1 billion in aid from the Ukrainian government until it fired Mr. Shokin ‘for not investigating corruption’.
OK, so we can’t investigate Ukrainian corruption as long as Joe Biden is running for President because, if Biden is exposed in any of this malfeasance, it will give something of value to the Trump campaign. That makes sense…’clearly’.
3 Senate Committees Now Investigating the Bidens and Ukraine
“Weeks before submitting his resignation, Shokin’s office had ordered and executed the seizure of assets of Zlochevsky [Burisma CEO]. While Biden withheld the loan guarantees, Ukraine faced a fiscal default and was fighting a war with Russia. At the same time, Biden’s son served a paid position on Burisma’s board.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/3-senate-com…
So, does the House impeach these Senators for providing something of value to the Trump campaign too? Isn’t it time for Congress to get on with governing the country and letting voters decide who should be President?
Welch has been a deepstate shill all his insufferable time as Vermont’s only Congressman. “Anybody but Welch” please. Time to drain the swamp in Vermont.
A counter argument posted below has defined impeachment criteria;
“Impeachment involves bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Evidence presented was Trump “attempted” a bribe by withholding aid. So how do we define “bribe”? Imagine you’re pulled over by a police officer and asked for your license and registration. You go to your wallet/purse, retrieve the requested documents and along with handing them over you include some cash. That’s a bribe. You’re attempting to bribe the officer into not giving you a ticket. So is it possible to “bribe” an officer by withholding anything? Ah, no. A bribe to my definition is some kind of payment in advance of receiving something. So Peter, are you aware our own Senator Leahy was one of three democrats to sign a letter of concern to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, that he may have put the investigation of Paul Manofort on hold? NY Times runs an article on May 2, 2018 and then bang, May 4th Leahy’s firing off a letter of concern! Keep in mind Trump’s so called “impeachable” phone call was July 25, 2019. So we’re basically talking a year and 12 wks before Trump’s phone call, the Dems were seeking dirt on a political adversary. Hmmmm….
The second sentence of Leahy’s letter states;
“As strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine, we believe that our cooperation should extend to such legal matters, regardless of politics.”
The Leahy letter goes on to say;
“This investigation not only has implications for the Mueller robe, but also speaks to critically important investigation into the corrupt practices of the Yanukovich administration, which stole millions of dollars from the people of Ukraine.”
Wow! So Peter was any of the millions of dollars stolen, America’s foreign aid tax dollars from Obama?