Maybe because people have a right to face their accuser, and their accuser should be able to withstand scrutiny to determine they are truthful and impartial? Otherwise anyone can say anything to anyone and remain hidden, their motives and claims never questioned.
I don't want to just out him. I want to expose all his connections for the last ten years, see all his social media communications, see copies of all his email and text communications with John Brennan since 2016, examine any and all of his relationships and their connections, cross examine him at length about who wrote the complaint and who he communicated with in the lead up to filing the complaint. And of course, that is just for starters. Whether he is a "whistleblower" is just an allegation at this point, that needs to be determined and if he is, then the Whistleblower Act and any protections do not apply in an impeachment proceedings anyway. Let's get this impeachment going. We will know the identify of the swampspy before long and will take it from there.
The outcome of this would only be less reporting of corruption in the federal government. I get you’re dumb as shit today but it doesn’t matter if the whistleblower worked on Biden’s campaign part time as long as the allegations are credible. And I get you might be dumbstruck by that statement and I am prepared for you to raise your level of stupid this morning but for anyone who has not been freebasing crack cocaine this morning my point stands.
As I understand it, the whistleblower said Trump asked a foreign power to investigate his top political opponent and moved it to a secured server. These two things have been admitted so why would we out the person who gave information that is true. If it turns out they hate Trump, so what, that's 60% of the country, motivation is irrelevant it the information is true.
The question is context. Simply asking the foreign power to investigate corruption and moving classified information to a secured server isn't illegal, regardless of the optics. Context is what crosses into the legality of the issue and the whistleblower's motivation and potential contamination changes some of this context. It also provides necessary detail to actually prove the President committed a crime. The only reason you would not bring the person forth is if you knew that doing so would harm your case. So this makes it a suspicious claim and brings doubt into the process. Of course, Trump brings doubt into the process as well because of the shenanigans on moving data to a classified server in the first place, as well as asking a foreign power to investigate corruption that just happens to be a person running against him in the next election. The whole thing stinks and the only way to get to the bottom of it is complete and total transparency.
The whistleblower said he was told of the circumstances by an official with firsthand knowledge. That is enough of a basis to bring forward a complaint. Even if the allegations were not true, unless they were falsified, a whistleblower’s identity should be protected.
I just think it sets a bad precedent to out someone who made a complaint that turned out to be true. Regardless of whether one thinks what he did is bad enough to impeach, I would think we would agree that it should be known. I would say the same thing if the tables were turned, knowing Trumps penchant for revenge, there will be consequences for the person responsible and those consequences will make it less likely others come forward in the future for either side. Don't get me wrong, I think the Biden thing is shady as hell too, but it was out in the open and didn't need a whistleblower to be known, if there are aspects of it that are not known and a whistleblower came out with something there that was corroborated and true, I would say that person has the right to anonymity just the same.