The Senate Should Stick with the Sixth Amendment During the Trial

   Is our Constitution imperiled? Are we throwing it aside? Is the Senate?
   Impartial jurors? Have they said they will do whatever the president -- the defendant -- wants? What does the Sixth Amendment say about whether the Senate should conduct the proceedings in the way and manner the president tells them to?
   Will witnesses be allowed? How can you have a fair trial, how can you expect to get evidence against the president if no witnesses are allowed? Now, shouldn't we be concerned with what the Sixth Amendment says about this? Do we honor the Constitution? We are big on the Second Amendment, but no so much a fan of the Sixth?
   Read, then, the Sixth Amendment:
   In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
    The House impeachment proceedings were more of a fact-finding mission, although elements of trial certainly were present. Still, of the two, the House event was more the investigation, and the Senate event more the trial. I do not know that that means it would not have been good to do the things mentioned in the Sixth Amendment in the House proceedings, but I do know some of those things are not found in many investigations in our land, and I do not know that the Sixth Amendment applies to investigations.
   As the proceeding move to the Senate, however, this Sixth Amendment should surely be applied. This is the trial. It should be speedy and public. It should be impartial, as opposed to the senators allowing their biases as Republicans or Democrats to sway and influence them. It should be held in the place where the alleged crime was committed, of course, so that means no more than in the U.S. It should include a thorough introduction of the nature and causes of the accusation, so the defendant can squarely defend himself. It shall provide the testimony of witnesses witnessing against the president. To me, this seems to have been placed in the Constitution to prevent government from rendering a decision with no regard to evidence. It (the Senate hearing) should include witnesses who speak in defense of the accused, as well. And, it should include a lawyer for the defense.
  On the part about being allowed "to be confronted with witnesses against him." Does that include the whistle-blower? I think of public tipsters who tip off law enforcement officers to crimes. Sometimes, they do not participate as witnesses. Sometimes, they are afraid of the accused, and sometimes they do not have so much evidence, anyway, that they have to serve as witnesses.
   I have suggested, in the past, that the Sixth Amendment dictates that the whistle-blower be a witness, even if he is in a different room and his identity is protected by scrambling his voice so it cannot be identified. Upon considering that tipsters -- whistle-blowers -- often do not testify, I now wonder. I now tend to thing he should not be required to testify if he doesn't have sole possession of  evidence critical to the trial. Inasmuch as the whistle-blowers witness has been said to be hearsay and second-hand, perhaps his witness is not critical and he or she should not be required to participate.
   We should also consider the part where it says the defendant shall "have the assistance of counsel for his defense." What if the president does not want witnesses on his behalf? What if he feels he does not want to dignify the proceedings by going that far? The Sixth Amendment simply says he shall "have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor." It does not require that they speak if the defendant doesn't want them to.
   And, what if he wants them to speak of Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, or maybe even of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? What if he tries to turn his trial into a trial of others?  Largely, this isn't covered by the Sixth Amendment. However, it does provide that he be allowed witnesses on his behalf. Let him bring in the witnesses against Biden (or Hillary and Obama) if, with each such witness, he can show how this applies to whether he should be found guilty or not guilty. From what limited knowledge I have, I believe that is all House leaders were asking when they held back on allowing Trump the witnesses the Republicans wanted.
   I suggest we should see many ways this impeachment / trial-for-removal-from-office process has imperiled our Constitution. It (the Constitution's Sixth Amendment) is being tossed aside by the Republicans. You can say both parties are guilty, but I wonder. Go back and consider on what we have covered above. If the impeachment proceedings are to be considered the investigative part of the process, what blame remains with the Democrats?
   Still, if they have fault, let us consider it. I might not have been perceptive enough to think of everything.