This really is THE question isn't it.
This whistleblower in particular didn't need to meet with another whistle blower to get "information that would support charges of wrongdoing". Tommy Hooks' testimony had already been given and was already well known, well accepted, and substantiated.
Hooks had already given audit information to support the charges of malfeasance against UCAL. The congressional testimony he was about to give is just a dog and pony show.
The incident, as it is currently being reported, just doesn't make sense.
I suppose Hooks might just be lacking enough in the common sense department to buy into a story that lured him to a strip joint to get the crap beaten out of him. The only way this makes sense though is if he was about to give new testimony, but that would be a novel feature at a congressional hearing. Congressional hearings are about making congress-critters look good, not about giving new testimony.
They're starting a whistleblower support group. I can't think of a better place for a meeting.