politics

Welch on electoral fraud investigation: “The answer is no”

By Guy Page

Vermont Congressman Peter Welch will not support an investigation into alleged 2020 General Election electoral fraud, either before or after Inauguration Day on January 20, 2021, he said at a Montpelier press conference yesterday. 

Rep. Welch, a Democrat, and Vermont’s lone congressman since his election in 2006, attended Gov. Phil Scott’s Tuesday press briefing to provide information on Vermont’s share of the $900 stimulus package approved by Congress and as yet unsigned by Pres. Donald Trump. 

Vermont Daily asked Rep. Welch (at two hours, 25 minutes on ORCA video): “Congressman Welch – If – and I know it’s a big if – you were persuaded either before or after Inauguration Day that the 2020 general election was a victim of significant electoral fraud, would you call for and support a House investigation?”

Rep. Welch replied: “There is no basis for that. We just saw Attorney General Barr, the appointee of President Trump, state that he would not appoint a special prosecutor. Because there was absolutely no evidence to support the allegation that there was any significant electoral fraud. It’s not there. So the answer is no. We’ve got to move on. We’ve got a president-elect, the people have spoken, and we’ve got work to do.”

At least 19 of Welch’s colleagues in the U.S. House disagree. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Alabama) and 18 other representatives have petitioned Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and other leaders of Congress to hold extensive evidentiary hearings into allegations of 2020 general election electoral fraud as soon as possible. 

WHAT HAPPENS JANUARY 6? – Rep. Welch, and every other member of Congress, will meet January 6 to count the electoral college votes and, if either candidate receives 270 votes, validate the election. According to the National Constitution Center describes the process: “A joint meeting of Congress is required by the 12th Amendment to count the electoral votes and declare the winners of the presidential election. The session on January 6 starts at 1 p.m….if there are objections at that meeting, a formerly obscure law will be consulted to settle disputes about electors.”

At least two members of the House have said they will object to the validation, due to concerns about electoral fraud: Matt Gaetz (R-Florida) and Brooks. Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama has said he will raise the objection in the Senate, according to the Washington Examiner

Here’s how the voting process works, according to the Congressional Research Service: “Objections to individual state returns must be made in writing by at least one Member each of the Senate and House of Representatives. If an objection meets these requirements, the joint session recesses and the two houses separate and debate the question in their respective chambers for a maximum of two hours. The two houses then vote separately to accept or reject the objection. They then reassemble in joint session, and announce the results of their respective votes. An objection to a state’s electoral vote must be approved by both houses in order for any contested votes to be excluded.”

If the January 6 vote fails to deliver a majority decision for president, the House of Representatives will hold a presidential election session, with each state receiving one vote. The Senate would elect the vice president, with each senator having one vote.

Dec. 15, Senate leader McConnell reportedly discouraged the electoral college protest on a conference call with other Republicans. An anonymous “well-connected Republican” explained GOP fear of electoral blowback in a Dec. 21 report in The Hill: “The outcome of any floor fight will be the same outcome as the Electoral College vote and all of those court cases the campaign has already lost, so it’s smarter to look forward to 2022 and the Georgia runoff and other races we can win, rather than races that we can’t.” 

There is recent historical precedent for Congressional objection to the electoral college results. The Congressional Record of January 6, 2001 shows organized Democratic protest in a joint meeting of Senate and House to confirm the electoral votes for the 2000 general election in which George Bush narrowly defeated Al Gore.

This statement by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California) is recorded on page 2:  “Mr. Speaker, I believe these electoral votes to be illegitimate and unrepresentative of the true popular vote in Florida. Vice President GORE is leading in popular votes in excess of 500,000 votes in this country, and all of Florida’s vote recounts are not yet tabulated. The recounts will document that GORE won Florida, despite voter fraud, despite voter intimidation, despite the butterfly ballots, despite the criminal recording of ID numbers on absentee ballots. History will record what really took place in this election.”

Many more pages of similar claims were recorded before the vote that confirmed George Bush as the elected president. 

IS REP. WELCH CORRECT IN SAYING THAT FRAUD IS “NOT THERE?” – As cited by Welch above, Attorney General William Barr did indeed tell the Associated Press Dec. 1 that “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” However, a report published Dec. 17 by Director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Peter Navarro entitled “The Immaculate Deception” offers evidence to dispute that claim.

The graphic below from “Immaculate Deception” outlines Navarros’ claim that irregularities and/or fraud significant enough to overturn the election exist in six key ‘battleground’ states.

“The observed patterns of election irregularities are so consistent across the six battleground states that they suggest a coordinated strategy to, if not steal the election outright, strategically game the election process in such a way as to “stuff the ballot box” and unfairly tilt the playing field in favor of the Biden-Harris ticket,” Navarro writes.

The rest of the 36-page report provides details supporting the allegations.

15 replies »

  1. If Mr Welch thinks there is no evidence of election fraud that only means he is in on the election fraud!!He needs therefore to be removed from his office!!

  2. Weasel Welch is like 90% of the politicians. They think their jobs are secure and will follow the talking points of those who hold their leash! There is SO much evidence of election/voter fraud and just because the MSM and all the China-bought elites deny it, doesn’t make it so! The Navarro report spells it out specifically and scientifically and without a doubt! Go to alternate sites to get the truth.

  3. Amazing…..All elected officials regardless of political leaning should be very keen on vote integrity and should want to hear the claims and then validate or disprove. To simply dismiss suggests there is admission to a problem or do not want to believe there is a problem or in fact is trying to cover up a problem. Usually when a person or business does not want an audit there is something to hide. By Rep Welch’s comments, he is trying to hide something and support the steal.

    If the shoe was on the other foot and the voter fraud/suppression claims were made by Welch, or even Bernie…..there would be investigations for months/years. Funny how political EVERYTHING IS now…..it doesn’t fit the script. Officials should be termed out after two terms…period!

    There should be and we should demand a complete recount of ALL LEGAL BALLOTS and matching verification of who is registered and eligible to legally vote.

  4. Welch, just another Liberal DemocRAT, that’s afraid to speak the truth, when a liberal states that there is “No
    evidence ” then they are part of the problem. The country has an election ” fraud ” problem in 2020 and it will
    be brought to light and show how corrupt the DemocRATs really are……….. Power hungry fools !!!

    Vermont should hold a complete audit of it’s election process, as we have no voter ID, and no proof who’s
    voting……….

  5. Even Barr could not find evidence for fraud. Or should we redefine “fraud” as what must exist when one loses an election by 7,000,000 votes? And if the Democrats rigged the presidential election, why didn’t they right the elections for the Senate as well?

  6. The one reason he says this is because he’s a Democrat. If he wasn”t, he’s change his tube very quickly.!

  7. Welch is just another swamp dweller with his leash firmly tied to Pelosi. I would not vote for this guy even if he was running for dog catcher.

  8. There is widespread evidence of fraud, not only in the battleground states, but elsewhere. If Welch is so willfully blind that he cannot see it, he should at least agree to let those claiming fraud present their case. What is he afraid of? Maybe, like Governor Scott, he is friendly toward the Communist Chinese, who also meddled in our election. If Biden succeeds in stealing this election, that is where we are headed.

  9. Apparently, Welch doesn’t care that many citizens don’t believe that our governments are democratic. “We’ve got to move on” – not unlike what a rapist would tell his victims.

  10. I do not trust the results of this election any more than I trust Peter Welch, his lack of concern for the sanctity of my vote speaks volumes about the integrity of this man and his contempt for my right to fair and honest elections!

  11. so why did Judicial Watch name Vermont for having/had voter fraud out of 29 states they investigated ??….I would believe them over Peter any day

Leave a Reply to Cindy Cancel reply