Testimony from the whistleblower is probably not needed. It is like a neighbor calls the police and says, “I hear screaming and yelling in an upstairs apartment.” The police come and find a woman bruised and bleeding, a man with skinned and swollen knuckles, and furniture in disarray. They do NOT need the neighbor. The true situation is right before their eyes, and the neighbor is not a witness as to who did what to whom.
Except that the “whistleblower” can identify the people who illegally leaked the content of the call to him. They might be on the hook for a charge of espionage. He also, with pressure properly applied, might lay out the full conspiracy and involvement of Schiff and company from before the complaint was filed.
Except that the WB has many partisan ties and appears to be a part of a coup.
In your example the WB would have been the neighbor who actually told the hubby that his wife was cheating on him, which caused the fight, but holding back the info that he is the one she’s cheating with. Might be of interest to the investigator.
This looks to me more like Neighbor A (the whistleblower) having a deep seated hatred of Neighbor B. So A decides to call the police to investigate B for something trumped up just to make trouble for B. That’s why A’s identity does need to be known, and they need to testify.
Interesting but meaningless.
This is not a trial. It is an impeachment process.
Regular rules of evidence are being decided on the fly even for an impeachment process.
The most significant being that it is usually carried in the Judiciary committee.
The second one that it is usually bipartisan.
So we are basically on partisan witch hunt territory.
The appropriate rules are whatever comes out of Schiff’s head.
The validity of such will be decided ultimately by the Senate.