So, the obvious reason this is dumb is that the 6th Amendment only applies at criminal trials. But also: it’s extremely common at criminal trials for the prosecution not to call witnesses whose testimony is not necessary as evidence.
If we MUST talk about impeachment via inapt CrimPro metaphors, the whistleblower is the anonymous tipster who spurs an investigation but is never called as a prosecution witness. Even in a criminal trial there’s no right to confront THAT person.
If we want to continue humoring the analogy, the “right to confront” Trumpsters are demanding would be the equivalent of insisting that police provide criminal suspects with the identity of every informant police are speaking to, while the investigation is still ongoing.
There is a certain irony in people posing as champions of the Constitution, then advancing arguments that make it obvious they have no idea what the words they’re mouthing mean. This is not stuff anyone with the slightest understanding of the Sixth Amendment would say.
If you don’t want to take my word for it, just apply five seconds of common sense: Is it unconstitutional for police departments to have anonymous tip lines? No? Then the confrontation clause doesn’t mean what these folks are trying to pretend it means.
“Hey, officer. I heard someone wuz snitchin on da boss. You gotta tell me who it is; it’s inna Constamatooshun.”
This is maddening because this isn’t some contested interpretive thing legal scholars debate. It’s just wrong at the most embarassingly basic level. Anyone who parrots this talking point either has no idea what they’re talking about & doesn’t care, or is being dishonest.
