Why is it so important who the whistleblower in the Trump-Zelensky phone call is?

Question

As far as I can tell, the anonymous whistleblower report filed by an intelligence officer about President Trump’s interactions with the leader of Ukraine is what got the whole Trump impeachment investigation started.

At this point, however, others have openly testified about the the same things described in the report. Still, the question of the whistleblower's identity seems to be attracting a lot of attention. President Trump claims to knows who the whistleblower was and Nancy Pelosi has said that she'll: "make sure [Trump] does not intimidate the whistleblower."

At this point though, why is it so important who the whistleblower is? Even if they never spoke to them again, haven't other witnesses said the exact same things?

Answer 1

In terms of what new information of substance can the whistle-blower bring to the fore that is not already confirmed or refuted by more closely engaged sources, there is no purpose and nothing for the whistle-blower to offer. Since the allegations have been corroborated, and more, it seems, the purpose of the whistle-blower is more key for the defense of Trump - as a distraction from the facts and evidence in the case.

Consider, that when the report was initially made, the defense you'd hear from the GOP and conservatives was that this person had nothing of value to offer, as their perspective was not "first hand." Now, the counter-argument was that the report and examination of the claims led to more direct corroboration, so bringing the issues to light was important, but the whistle-blower, himself/herself and what they had to say (already in the report), was less important than offering a map of where to look and who to talk to.

So, the same people, who previously, before any witnesses were heard, were discounting the value of anything this person had to say, now think it is very important to talk to them, even though they don't have anything more to offer than what was in the report, and certainly less than other sources who have spoken to the same issues.

But as a distraction, the defense is to hope to throw ancillary issues that have no probative value into the mix, and make a muddled mess of things.

Supposedly, it is important to find out if this person had a partisan agenda, if they hated Trump, if they ever lied about anything in their lives, if they had ever "leaked" information.

None of that matters.

If I hate a person, and see them shoot someone dead in the street, and I report it, maybe if my claim is the only piece of evidence, it might be looked at with skepticism. If my reporting it leads to the police talking to other witnesses who saw the events, pulling camera footage that objectively documents the events..... how does my own feelings about the person impact the veracity of the claims and facts? It does not.

This person followed the documented procedure for raising an issue, by the book. To eliminate bias and false claims, the process has a review by an independent, objective party - the Inspector General. If the Inspector General finds that the claims are "credible and urgent," THEN it is supposed to be forwarded. The IG did find this, so, again, whatever their motivations, whatever their goals, an independent party without the same agenda, bias and feelings assessed the claims to be credible.

Whether the person ever "leaked" information is irrelevant, because this was not a leak - the proper procedure was followed by the whistle-blower. Whether the person ever lied about anything is irrelevant, as these claims have been independently vetted and corroborated.

So, if you are searching for the truth about what happened, and are seeking useful information, the whistle-blower has nothing of value to offer to the process, at this point. Their valuable input started and ended with the filing of the report, and with the contents of the report.

If you want to create an imaginary conspiracy of some sort as a lifeline to those desperate to deny the facts in evidence, then the whistle-blower has value as an imaginary boogey-man.

Answer 2

There are at least 3 motives to get the whistleblower to testify:

1. Fact finding to figure out what actually happened.

2. Retaliation to discourage and intimidate potential future whistleblowers, and also to discourage and intimidate witnesses.

3. Distraction not only to literally distract from the core question of the impeachment, but also as a vital component of a wider Chewbacca defense.

As of now, the whistleblower's testimony is no longer relevant for 1., because everything they revealed has already been covered by first hand witness testimony, and physical evidence.

To answer the question: 2. and 3. are still very relevant, and therefore the whistleblower is still very relevant.

Answer 3

President Trump does, he tweeted on Sunday November 17th:

Where is the Fake Whistleblower?

PoloHoleSet is right in their answer by saying that there's no evidence that having the whistleblower testify will provide additional insights. What is in the whistleblower report can either be supported by other evidence or it cannot.

Forcing the whistleblower to come forward is said to be a bad idea because it may discourage future whistleblowers from reporting wrongdoing in government. As stated by the chairmen of various House committees (quote from a larger statement, emphasis mine):

“The President’s comments today constitute reprehensible witness intimidation and an attempt to obstruct Congress’ impeachment inquiry. We condemn the President’s attacks, and we invite our Republican counterparts to do the same because Congress must do all it can to protect this whistleblower, and all whistleblowers. Threats of violence from the leader of our country have a chilling effect on the entire whistleblower process, with grave consequences for our democracy and national security.”

I should note that the quote above was made on September 26 and is not a reply to the newer tweet referenced at the start of my answer.

Answer 4

At this point though, why is it so important who the whistleblower is?

It is "important" if your intention is to harass and intimidate the whistle-blower as well as other potential whistle-blowers. Like the threats made by Representative Matt Gaez to Cohen prior to Cohen's testimony before Congress. Or Roger Stone referring to a pivot Godfather 2 scene when intimidating witnesses which was referenced on page 19 of his indictment.

It is "important" when your intention is to portray the whistle-blower as a partisan hack. For example, one partisan attack on Lt. Col. Vindman is to try to portray him as un-American or "a Democrat" in order to undermine his testimony.

Answer 5

'Fruit of the poisonous tree' is a common defense in criminal court when the defense is having difficulty refuting the prosecutor's arguments on their merits. Basically, if you can go back and prove that the original source is in some way faulty or illegal, then everything that happened because of that one source can be ruled inadmissible. Republicans are hoping that this would serve to discredit the entire investigation and thus muddy the waters enough that voters see both parties as corrupt and biased and thus reject the impeachment as a political ploy. Unfortunately for them, an impeachment is not a criminal trial and thus many criminal trial rules do not apply.

Answer 6

Trump cares, and he thinks that he can make the public care too. He believes that if he knows who the whistle blower is, he can jump on Twitter and start systematically discrediting them and doing his usual "Trump thing".

You're right though, at this point it doesn't really matter. They've had the same testimony from a half-dozen witnesses, and there's official transcripts of the calls that the whistle blower raised their concerns about.

At this point it's more about protecting them as a person than protecting them from being attacked and discredited by Trump. He has a lot of supporters, and this person's life could be made hell by them, were they to be identified.

Answer 7

If it were a criminal trial, the whistleblower’s (WB) report, being hearsay, would not be admissible, and anyone attempting to do so would be reprimanded. However, as in an answer, the investigators would not be reprimanded for looking for other evidence.

But this is not a criminal trial, it is the investigation, so different rules apply. And those rules aren’t clearly established by any statute. That said, the chatter about WB makes no sense for fact-finding at this point. (It makes a lot of sense for partisan mud-slinging from both sides.)

Answer 8

I imagine the whistleblower cares about themselves a whole lot.

The United States places considerable protection on whistleblowers in both the government and private industries. Revealing or implying to have information about their identity is still a very sensitive subject - regardless of his credibility or lack thereof due to his identity.

It may have little impact on the impeachment hearings itself, but their identity is still very important in terms of both civil liberty, and of their own self-preservation.