Why does the identity of the whistle-blower matter?

[JimZipCode]

There's a piece in the Wash Post yesterday about efforts to ID the whistleblower in the Trump/Ukraine story, and how different media outlets are handling it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...8b6_story.html

The piece is fairly dry. Some excerpts:

despite apparent knowledge of the individual’s identity among people in Washington, his name hasn’t been widely reported.

One online publication, Real Clear Investigations, offered a lengthy, if unconfirmed, account about the whistleblower’s identity last week. But its reporting was largely ignored. Outside of a few conservative news sources such as RedState.com and Breitbart and personalities such as Rush Limbaugh, the story didn’t get much traction.
...
“I’m not convinced his identity is important at this point, or at least important enough to put him at any risk, or to unmask someone who doesn’t want to be identified,” said Dean Baquet, executive editor of the New York Times. “Pretty much everything has now been discussed or confirmed on the record, multiple times, by others in the administration. So I’m not sure I see the point of unmasking someone who wants to remain anonymous.”

The Washington Post, the Times and the Associated Press have reported that the whistleblower is a male CIA officer, but none has identified the individual.
...
[AP spokeswoman Lauren] Easton said Tuesday that the AP has continued to keep the name under wraps because “AP typically refrains from identifying whistleblowers.” She did not explain why.

Post spokeswoman Kris Coratti said The Post wasn’t naming an individual because it “has long respected the right of whistleblowers to report wrongdoing in confidence, which protects them against retaliation.” She added, “We also withhold identities or other facts when we believe that publication would put an individual at risk. Both of those considerations apply in this case.”

Other news organizations didn’t respond to requests for comment, or were terse in reply. The Wall Street Journal and Fox News declined to explain their approach. NBC News said it wasn’t naming the individual “until or unless they identify themselves publicly.” It also did not say why.
AD

CNN had no response.

Dumb question:

What is the importance of the whistle-blower's actual identity? Either the substance of the report (allegation? complaint? filing?) is verifed, or isn't. In either case, I don't see what diff the identity makes.

• If the elements are confirmed, learning the identity doesn't suddenly make them untrue.
• If the elements are contradicted, learning the identity won't suddenly make them true.

Right? What am I missing?

[darb72]

In a less polarized environment, it wouldn't matter. Now that the country is tittering on the brink of a civil war? Yeah, the fact the guy worked closely with democrats to find anything that might harm Trump in 2020 is important.

[bossofataka]

Since manyhardcore right wingers are so conspiracy driven I assume many wouldn´t care if it´s proven right if the whistleblower is a democrat, that´s all they need to know to start spinning the conspiracies presumably. Facts never mattered much there. I mean, just look at some guys here...

Mostly though I think it´s pure scare tactics and looking for some kind of revenge.

I do hope the identity can be concealed, or that person will be in big trouble.

[Vlad the lad]

Since manyhardcore right wingers are so conspiracy driven I assume many wouldn´t care if it´s proven right if the whistleblower is a democrat, that´s all they need to know to start spinning the conspiracies presumably. Facts never mattered much there. I mean, just look at some guys here...

Mostly though I think it´s pure scare tactics and looking for some kind of revenge.

I do hope the identity can be concealed, or that person will be in big trouble.

Since many hard core fringe lefties are conspiracy driven. It doesn’t matter if the guy made up the story, or if it has been proven false with transcripts. what matters is the seriousness of the charge

This has opened the door to any future president being impeached on hearsay from an unmentioned whistleblower. Any president can fall at any time. Regardless if he did anything wrong. It will come back to the seriousness of the charge

[bossofataka]

Since many hard core fringe lefties are conspiracy driven. It doesn’t matter if the guy made up the story, or if it has been proven false with transcripts. what matters is the seriousness of the charge

This has opened the door to any future president being impeached on hearsay from an unmentioned whistleblower. Any president can fall at any time. Regardless if he did anything wrong. It will come back to the seriousness of the charge

Seriously, you are just trolling for sure, right? Everyone knows it wasn´t made up by now, I mean, in what world do you live? The whistleblowers concerns are pretty mcuh spot on with the transcripts, with what Taylor, Sondland and others have said in the hearings. Whatever you think of it, it´s there.

No, it certainly hasn´t. And "hearsay"??? Jesus dude... And I do hope whistleblowers don´t become public knowledge ever, because that is a big threat to democracy.

[JimZipCode]

Yeah, the fact the guy worked closely with democrats to find anything that might harm Trump in 2020 is important.

"Fact"?

Now that the country is tittering on the brink of a civil war?

Do you believe that? I see a lot of questions in my Quora feed about who's going to win "the civil war that will start in 2020". I have dismissed the premise.

It doesn’t matter if the guy made up the story, or if it has been proven false with transcripts. what matters is the seriousness of the charge

What's been proven false with transcripts? From what I've seen, pretty much every major element of the original, uh, complaint/filing/report has been corroborated.

This has opened the door to any future president being impeached on hearsay from an unmentioned whistleblower. Any president can fall at any time. Regardless if he did anything wrong.

How do you figure that?

Trump hasn't been impeached. If/when he is, it will only be after weeks of closed-hearing investigation by 3 House committees empaneled together deposing witnesses, followed by some weeks of public hearings. If there was no substance, the stuff would have blown over some time ago.

[JimZipCode]

Yeah, the fact the guy worked closely with democrats to find anything that might harm Trump in 2020 is important.

I mean, even if the report came from Hilary Clinton herself, isn't the important thing whether it's corroborated or not?

[Vlad the lad]

"Fact"?


Do you believe that? I see a lot of questions in my Quora feed about who's going to win "the civil war that will start in 2020". I have dismissed the premise.


What's been proven false with transcripts? From what I've seen, pretty much every major element of the original, uh, complaint/filing/report has been corroborated.


How do you figure that?

Trump hasn't been impeached. If/when he is, it will only be after weeks of closed-hearing investigation by 3 House committees empaneled together deposing witnesses, followed by some weeks of public hearings. If there was no substance, the stuff would have blown over some time ago.

The fact that schiff has to make up false allegations during his opening statement was enough evidence this is a scam. Only those that suffer from TDS still think there is anything here

[darb72]

I mean, even if the report came from Hilary Clinton herself, isn't the important thing whether it's corroborated or not?

We know who the "whistle blower" is, and we know that he worked directly with Schiff on this before it went public.

Given we have the actual transcript of the call, it's already been disproved. If Trump were to engage in an illegal act, then no it wouldn't matter who provided proof.

[JimZipCode]

We know who the "whistle blower" is...

We do?

Given we have the actual transcript of the call...

We do? I thought all we had was the so-called "rough transcript", which has been shown to be incomplete. And that the actual transcript was locked away in classified storage.

[JimZipCode]

The fact that schiff has to make up false allegations during his opening statement...

Which opening statement? False in what particulars?

[Vlad the lad]

We do?


We do? I thought all we had was the so-called "rough transcript", which has been shown to be incomplete. And that the actual transcript was locked away in classified storage.

What? Who said it was incomplete?