whistle-blower They claim your are not supposed to know his name. Well think about that for a minuet it would be like someone tells the world you did something but you are not allowed to know who made the accusation. America belief say you should be able to face your accuser. The people they dragged out to agree with the whistle-blower none had first hand knowledge of what happened it was all here say which would never stand up in a court of law.
Lots of accusers were faced---the folks that testified under oath in Congress. Little people, like you and I, had better tell the truth under oath. They won't get pardoned if they get caught lying. But honestly, what difference would knowing the whistleblower's name make? Think about it. What would have changed? Only possibly intimidation, with the intent to suppress the reporting of any wrongdoing again. I appreciate your opinion, Martin, but we better leave it at that.
Knowing the whistleblower's name is not the concern. The concern is his testimony was deemed valid without any examination by opposing force.
The House changed its definition of a whistleblower just for this guy, who had second-hand information about a policy dispute, at best, and never came forward with that, other than to strategize with Schiff's office.