.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

1. « The senate trial is entirely up to the majority leader. I would imagine that if he were to call witnesses, he would also include Joe and Hunter Biden, Adam Schiff, the whistle-blower etc »
.

I don’t know what the Bidens and Schiff could be witness to as regards the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry on Trump attempting to recruit the assistance of the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky by telephone on July 25, 2019 to discredit the Bidens in the lead-up to the US presidential election.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think they ever had any knowledge of that telephone call until the “whistle-blower” revealed it.

However, if there is any contribution they could make to help reveal the truth, on this or any other matter pertinent to the trial, of course, they should be called as witnesses.
.

2. « Noting that the majority democrats excluded republican witnesses and republicans from the secret hearings, I don't see any moral authority from the democrats for the senate to compromise »

That’s strange. I did not note that. The House of Representatives Report indicates :

« The investigation revealed the nature and extent of the President’s misconduct, notwithstanding an unprecedented campaign of obstruction by the President and his Administration to prevent the Committees from obtaining documentary evidence and testimony. A dozen witnesses followed President Trump’s orders, defying voluntary requests and lawful subpoenas, and refusing to testify. The White House, Department of State, Department of Defense, Office of Management and Budget, and Department of Energy refused to produce a single document in response to our subpoenas.

Ultimately, this sweeping effort to stonewall the House of Representatives’ “sole Power of Impeachment” under the Constitution failed because witnesses courageously came forward and testified in response to lawful process. The report that follows was only possible because of their sense of duty and devotion to their country and its Constitution. »

Would you kindly indicate the source of your statement that “the majority democrats excluded republican witnesses” ?

.

Republicans were not allowed to cross examine the supposed whistle-blower under Democrats ruling. So it was natural that Republican witnesses refused, because it was a kangaroo court, not a court of justice.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/trump-impeachment-republicans-ruling-witnesses-trial-191223164940895.html

.

Dear Josephus,

.

You wrote :

« Republicans were not allowed to cross examine the supposed whistle-blower under Democrats ruling. So it was natural that Republican witnesses refused, because it was a kangaroo court, not a court of justice »
.

It was not quite as simple as that, Josephus. President Trump, the accused, as well as his legal advisors and the Republican members of Congress, would, effectively, have had the right to cross-examine the president’s accuser had he or she not received the benefit of both federal whistle-blower laws and the Privacy Act of 1974 that protect the individual’s anonymity within the executive branch.

This is fairly well laid out in the following article that appeared in “The Hill” dated 2 November 2019 :

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/468631-gop-argues-whistleblowers-name-must-be-public
.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, also affirmed in its July 26, 2019, unanimous ruling the right of a whistle-blower to remain anonymous :

http://www.kkc.com/news/appeals-court-affirms-whistleblowers-right-to-anonymity/

.

Banjo,

The Bidens are neck deep in the purpose why the call was made and as such are legitimate witnesses, and if they are as innocent as they claim, then they have nothing to fear, and why did the democrats block them as witnesses in the house impeachment process?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/10/republicans-want-hunter-biden-impeachment-testimony/2554571001/

Similarly, it also it is fundamental to any "trial" that evidence presented be able to be cross examined, and that procedures exist for cross examining confidential witnesses. In the cases where confidential witnesses fail to give testimony their evidence is inadmissible.

However, if as the house democrats insist, that the evidence from the house impeachment is overwhelming, (which they used to justify a rapid vote on the impeachment), then only rational to call further witnesses in the senate trial is to perpetuate the congressional circus.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« The Bidens are neck deep in the purpose why the call was made and as such are legitimate witnesses, and if they are as innocent as they claim, then they have nothing to fear, and why did the democrats block them as witnesses in the house impeachment process? »
.

The first article, “Abuse of Power”, of the impeachment resolution voted by the House of Representatives states :

« Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his re-election, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations. President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. In so doing, President Trump used the Powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation. »

The political opponent, former Vice President of the United States, Jo Biden, was, of course, totally unaware of the alleged behind-the-scenes scheming of Donald Trump and obviously played no part in them.

If, indeed, they did take place, and the President of Ukraine had accepted the quid pro quo, the Bidens, father and son, would have simply been the unsuspecting victims.

Trump subsequently denied the attempted quid pro quo that was revealed by the whistle-blower.

The Bidens were not witnesses to this affair. I they did anything illegal they should be brought before the appropriate criminal courts. They had nothing to contribute to Trump’s impeachment inquiry.

.

Banjo,

Perhaps you could refrain from democratic talking points and seriously consider the following.

Joe Biden withheld aid from Ukraine to purportedly force Ukraine to act against a corrupt prosecutor. This in itself shows that using quid pro quo in itself is not illegal and the focus is on the motivation.

That Biden took this action against a prosecutor that had an open investigation against a company that had his son in a highly paid position for which he was not qualified is a clear conflict of interest.

That Trump was asking Ukraine to investigate this possible act of corruption would be entirely legal with the exception of a possible conflict of interest. Calling Joe and Hunter Biden as witnesses is clearly relevant to Trump's defense.