Certainly if there was a 'whistle blower' they would have testified, we'd know what they claim to have known, but even with the formal impeachment, we still do not know who the whistle blower is or what they know. Don't we have a right to face our 'accuser'? Shouldn't you need them to at least testify?
What does it tell you that we do not? Likely that they do not exist.
Ian
We dont know because it was submitted anonymously, and trump doesnt have the right to face his accuser until it goes to trial and that happens in the senate
Kjelstad
A tip can be submitted anonymously, but if this is the case, one must be represented by counsel. You can take it up with the house, they accused him and uncovered the evidence.
?
It's because the grossly unfair rules adopted by the House democrats did not allow him or any other witnesses requested by the Republicans to be called. Of course they should have been called and will be if the Senate has a full scale trial.
Mao Bidden
I think everyone who has followed the news closely knows the whistleblower is Brennan's pajama boy. LOL
?
Because the whistleblower's identity is not necessary. Everything the whistleblower stated has been corroborated by other witnesses.