Regarding the Nov. 11 Debra J. Saunders commentary regarding the Trump-Ukraine whistleblower (“There’s good reason to identify the whistleblower”):
As any police force will tell you, an important element in fighting criminal activity is protecting the identity of informants. If a citizen reports criminal activity, such as drug dealing, and they are rightfully concerned about retribution, their anonymity is guaranteed.
If the crime can be successfully prosecuted based upon evidence gathered, then there is no need for the identity of the citizen to be revealed, as it is irrelevant to the outcome of the trial. The only ones who consistently attempt to find out the identity of the citizen are those who would do them harm, such as fellow gang members.
So it is with the impeachment proceedings. The identity of the whistleblower is irrelevant, as there appears to be ample evidence that a crime has taken place without endangering the whistleblower. Saunders’ argument comparing this to the Blasey Ford testimony is flawed, in that it was Blasey Ford making the accusation about actions taken directly against her. In order for that to move forward, her identity had to be revealed.