Why the fixation on the whistleblower identity?

Part of being a whistleblower is the conviction to risk persecution if your claims are found to be false.

Without the identity being known, the whistleblower can lie and yet escape persecution.

If a whistleblower remains anonymous, their claims will and should be viewed skeptically, as they are effectively or at least perceptably absolved from the risks associated with false allegations.

Its kinda like when people make outrageous claims on the internet because no one can hold them accountable for making **** up.

 

You are not suggesting some Trump hater who happens to be very familiar with the Bidens and worked for the Democrat party would accidentally stumble into Shiff for brains office where a bunch of lawyers constructed a formal account of an event of which that individual never had any first hand knowledge all hidden for months until they felt the time was right for another manufactured crisis and then think the loonie lefties could not **** this up?
Shades of Kavanaugh.

 

This thing is well beyond the WB dude.

His complaint has been verified through numerous sources.. He is of no import any longer

 

This is easy somebody gave this guy information he was not supposed to have. Time to find out why.

 

That's what criminals always say...

 

People who criminally leak information especially when they clearly lied about are criminals.

 

Nice try.

 

Mob guys always get ticked at the guys who rat them out....

 

There was nothing criminal in what the WB did or any of the other witnesses that have testified.

The criminals are Trump and his "crew".

 

No. Came in right here

PERFECT!​

 

Was one of them The president or the other guy on the other end of the phone call? Or you still going with the "He said, she said." line of attack?

Good luck with that silly plan of attack LMAO

 

I believe the whisleblower needs to be identified so that he can be cross examined as to who did his coaching.
Obama actually fired the whistleblower in his gun running scandal. We'll cross examine this whistleblower then he can return to working for Brennan and Biden.

 

Which statement?

 

If he did he did a good job, don't you think?

 

Why because someone said that they heard something but never heard nothing the two men said Damn, the left is scouring the laundry rooms for gossip now.. Pretty sad

 

At least one it would seem.

 

We're talking individuals other than EC

 

Any, they weren't present

 

No defense.
Get impeached.

 

Like you won't if he cooperates.
Too funny.
You'll get nothing

 

EC?

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman

 

It looks like there are a lot of people ready to cooperate.
How many so far 7 or 8?

 

Common human decency.

 

Vindman was on the line during the call, so this second hand nonsense is over. I count at least 6-7 whistleblowers at this juncture. So we've got a president that uses mob speak like rat and snitch. Where did we dig up this thug?

 

Unfortunately the incentives of both of these individuals are aligned to claim no wrongdoing independent of the truth of the matter.

The president, the one who is accused of wrongdoing, has no incentive to validate such claims as they would only hurt him. Zelensky, whose country has been invaded by Russia and is hoping to utilize relations with the US to help stave off Russian aggression, risks losing US support for a minimum of 1 year, and up to 5 if he says anything that contradicts the POTUS story. Given their motivations, it is difficult to place must trust in anything they have to say on the matter, even if all of it is true.

The whistleblower's complaints likewise do not have enough evidence on their face value to trust them alone. Hence why it is necessary to corroborate them with other sources - diplomats, officials, lawyers and the like who were directly involved in the matter. But given that this is Washington and people's loyalties are mixed, your mileage may vary per individual interviewed - especially if individuals fear they themselves may be caught up in accusations of wrongdoing by admitting anything, or may be subject to political retaliation.

Emails, official documents, text messages, photographs, video tapes, and any recordings are likely to be the only concrete evidence that may be truly relied upon - assuming they a) exist and b) can be produced. Given that it is the POTUS, his personal lawyers, and departments that are accused of wrongdoing and would even have such documents if they exist, the chances for enough such sources to be produced that we can know with absolute certainty either way is unlikely.