Anonymity...

Did I miss something?

I've been looking high and low (mostly "high") and still haven't found the answer to my simple little question: how is that Donald J. Trump was not permitted to confront his accuser?

Now, we know from our civics class in high school (unless you were born more recently, and then you had Transgender Studies, instead) that the Constitution of these here United States says that we are guaranteed via the 6th Amendment the Right to confront our accuser in a criminal trial.  In fact, it's referred to as the "Confrontation Clause," to this guarantee.  We Americans are guaranteed the Right to not only confront our accuser, but to also cross-examine him or her (or it...gotta' remember Taxifornia, doncha' know).   

But wait!  It seems that this little requirement was ignored in the recently concluded impeachment trial of one D. J. Trump.  His accuser was a "whistleblower."  One whose identity we're told we may not learn.  Hmmm.  Why, I wonder?

The "Federal Whistleblower Statute" was designed to protect such folks against retaliation.  As in, "...firing, demotion, malicious reassignment, etc."  But the whistleblower in Trump's case, reputedly one Eric Ciamarella, is fearing none of those actions.  From what we've learned, in fact, our whistleblower is a career CIA analyst on loan to the National Security Agency.  The same place our Lt. Col. Vindman, key prosecution witness against Trump, and his twin civilian brother, were assigned.  

In fact, we're told off the record that this registered Democrat and Vindman conspired together to bring down Trump in a failed "soft coup" attempt, presumably aided and abetted by the House Judiciary Committee and its Chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff.

You remember Schiff, right?  He's the guy who told us everyday for two full years that he had absolute, incontrovertible proof that Trump conspired with Russia's Prez Putin to steal the 2016 election.  And that he was going to present that evidence at the "right time."  

Apparently, that "right time" never came.  

It seems Vindman and the Whistleblower didn't much like Trump's attitude toward Ukraine and its new Prez, so they decided to do something about it.  And the impeachment trial just concluded was the result...

There is nothing in the whistleblower protection statutes that call for anonymity.  Every single whistleblower yet has been called upon to testify in open court.  A few may have been looked after via the "Witness Protection Program" following their testimony, but the Constitutional protections demanding that a defendant has a Right to confront his accuser always trumps (pun intended).  

I am astounded that Trump's legal defense team did not make this assertion.  

Maybe because I'm not a lawyer.  Maybe that's why I don't understand the reason(s) why the whistleblower wasn't required to plant his ass in the witness chair and testify, under oath.  Maybe there's a really good reason.  But if there is, I say the law is an ass (as Shakespeare used to say).  And it should be changed.  

Again, I'm not a lawyer.  For which I say, thank you God!  I dislike myself enough on occasion.  I don't want to hate myself all of the time...