CNN "CNN Newsroom" - Transcript: "Interview with Rep. Peter Welch"
Interview
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
HARLOW: Welcome back.
So right now another State Department official is testifying behind closed doors, sharing what she knows about the Trump administration's decision to withhold that aid from Ukraine. According to the opening statement that has been obtained by CNN, Catherine Croft will testify that she learned from an OMB official via videoconference that acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney put an informal hold on that security assistance and said, quote, the only reason given was that the order came at the direction of the president.
With me now is Vermont Democratic Congressman Peter Welch. Of course he serves on both the House Intel and the Oversight Committees.
And I know you're going into that testimony right after we wrap up here, so let's get right to it.
What questions do you have for Ms. Croft?
REP. PETER WELCH (D-VT): Well, it's what you said in your opening. What we're trying to do is a thorough investigation, who knew what, when.
You know, this all starts with the president's own language, his phone call and the read out of that call where he asked for, quote, a favor and basically used his office to try to get a foreign power to assist him in the 2020 campaign. And what we're doing with these witnesses is finding out what, if any information they have that corroborates what was obviously the intention of the president according to his own words.
These two -- this witness is a career State Department official. You mentioned that she has, in her opening statement, but our questions, both Republicans and Democrats will be, do you know anything more and we'll try to get corroboration.
HARLOW: OK. Let's talk about what's happening tomorrow. That is a full house vote on this impeachment resolution and the rules for it. You have obviously got a lot of Democratic support for this. Nancy Pelosi wouldn't take it to the floor, I think, without knowing the votes. But you do have, for example, New Jersey Democratic Congressman Jeff Van Drew, who's a no, leaning a no, at least, on the resolution and he said recently, quote, I think the right side of history is not to impeach.
Do you expect others to join that camp?
WELCH: I don't think too many. And, keep in mind, there's a couple of things. One, there was a lot of reservation about proceeding on impeachment led by Nancy Pelosi. And that really did change after the Ukraine call. And it became a question as to whether there was a constitutional obligation to proceed. Mr. Van Drew was in that camp. And we'll see.
But, second, tomorrow is about the process. It's really not validating the inquiry. That's been ongoing. And this process is going to be very open, allowing the president and his attorneys to be present during the testimony. And he'll be able to ask questions and see things.
HARLOW: Well, can I -- let me just ask you a little bit more about that because what we've learned from reading this and, you know, and from impeachment experts, like Ross Garber, who was just on the program a few minutes ago, yes, it lays out that the president's attorney would be able to be in the room, would be able to cross- examine witnesses, but not until it reached the Judiciary Committee stage, right, which is --
WELCH: That's correct.
HARLOW: And it's different than the Clinton impeachment. You already had the Ken Starr report. You already had the road map. The Republican argument, as I understand it is, this isn't really fair because the president's attorney can't be in there cross-examining during this stage of it, right, with your committees and the questions you're asking.
WELCH: Well, that's -- that's --
HARLOW: Should they be afforded that opportunity so you can really argue, you know, full transparency, full equal rights?
WELCH: No, the -- it -- you're partly right, but here's where it's different. In the Clinton impeachment you had a special prosecutor. In this case, the special prosecutor, in effect, is the intelligence committee in the hearings we're conducting with the two other committees.
[09:40:08]
So that stage, which would be comparable to the Mueller investigation on the obstruction of justice issues, is the part that is done in private for investigation reasons.
HARLOW: Yes.
WELCH: So that's what's really different. The special prosecutor, in effect, is the Intel Committee.
HARLOW: I -- look, you make an important point. I understand the difference, but I'm glad you laid it out for people. I just wonder if you see any merit to Republicans' argument here because they are different scenarios than back in the late '90s.
WELCH: I don't. And here's why. When you do an investigation, you've got to get the witnesses in private so they're not doctoring their testimony and, really, preparing it in advance on the basis of what's been reported publicly. That's the normal approach. When we get to the open hearing stage, everyone's going to hear from many of the witnesses who we've heard from in private in real time and there will be an opportunity for the Republicans then, just as there is now in these closed hearings, for them to ask questions.
HARLOW: Yes.
WELCH: So my view, this is a fair process and very consistent with prior history.
HARLOW: Right. There are 48 Republicans between those three committees that can be in there for all the hours of testimony asking whatever questions they want. Mark Meadows has said as much, no limit on questioning.
Do you think it's important to hear from the whistleblower?
WELCH: I don't really. Maybe added color. But what you've seen with the whistleblower report, the incredible details that was in that report is confirmation from everyone from the president's phone call that came out after the whistleblower report to Mick Mulvaney's statement in public to the other witnesses. So the whistleblower, I don't think at this point -- the whistleblower got this started, but the whistleblower didn't have firsthand information. It turned out that the firsthand information he lacked has been provided by many others, including Lieutenant Colonel Vindman yesterday.
HARLOW: OK.
Finally, when it comes to what -- what other members of Congress can do right now, for example, members of the committees who are not going into the room, like Congressman Yoho, who we had on the program yesterday, who until yesterday had not attended any of -- any of these depositions. The ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mike McCall, wrote a letter to Adam Schiff complaining about the process and said your staff claims the only way that we can have access to the transcripts is in your offices during designated hours under the personal supervision and monitoring of a majority staffer. Is that fair, do you think, congressman?
WELCH: Well, there's two issues. One is, do we want to make the transcripts available to all members of Congress? The answer is yes.
Number two, do we want to keep the current -- the transcripts private until they're disclosed publicly? And that requires some process where there's some limiting of when and how you can see it. We just don't have the staff.
But I think we can be flexible on that to try to accommodate the desired members.
HARLOW: OK.
WELCH: And so we -- we're open on that.
HARLOW: All right. So maybe there should be some give there, you're saying. I appreciate your time. I know you've got to get into the deposition, so I'll let you go.
WELCH: Yes, thank you.
HARLOW: Congressman Peter Welch, thank you.
WELCH: Thank you.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source