The person who filed the report is a whistle blower. That is all there is. You should sue your mom for the apparent damage she did to your brain in the womb. We don't need to argue what a you think the law SHOULD be in your world.
In your world, false accusers should be effectively given immunity against their potentially false statements? How does a ghost swear to tell the truth under penalties of perjury? Edit: To swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help him God?
There’s an old adage, “it’s what you can prove in court.” So far this whole inquiry has put nothing forward that would be admissible in a courtroom other than someone’s opinions and the veracity and motivation of those are questionable. The accused has the right to meet the accuser. Without that the whole thing stinks of partisan politics, lies and fabrication.
let's be honest, people that report a crime to 911 that they witness have the option to remain anonymous. The prosecution without any evidence available will try their damnedest to get the anonymous witness to testify. That's not the case here, there were a dozen other witnesses closer to the crime testifying.
Someone, Mr. Anon, usually under supervision leaks/writes something that’s reported in the media. It’s not vetted, but who cares, it fits the OMB narrative (or better yet, Mr Anon is protected from cross examination and proof of accusations). Other media outlets report the report. The reported report is used as evidence. Under testimony witnesses cite said reported report as source of knowledge and the circle of unsubstantiated gossip continues ad nauseam. The whole thing was an orchestrated political kabuki drama, compiled solely for talking points.
They testified nothing? Everyone’s opinion was what they wanted to believe, Mean Old Trump said this and that, but when they were asked specifically did you hear President Trump say squat..... the answer was NO. Everyone’s sick of the bullshit.... but please continue. You’re just digging the hole deeper.
and that's fine, you're welcome to remain blind and deaf to what's been testified, but the whistle blower said nothing different than what's been confirmed by those who've testified, so the calls to "out" the whistle blower is gnashing of teeth and would provide nothing new.