There are, of course, some holes in this theory. Trump has already released the memorandum of his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which he asked Zelensky to work with Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. And now multiple other witnesses have corroborated that foreign aid to Ukraine was held up under this arrangement. So by now, the case no longer stands on just the original whistleblower complaint. There are plenty more accusers to go around.

But a further point: The Sixth Amendment doesn’t actually apply here, because it relates to criminal trials, not to impeachments in the House of Representatives.

Mollie Hemingway, senior editor at The Federalist and also a Fox News contributor, attempted to start an argument Monday night on this issue with Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI) — a Trump critic who left the Republican Party a few months ago, and who voted in favor of the impeachment inquiry process last week. Replying to a tweet in which Amash criticized Republicans for wanting to expose the whistleblower, Hemingway claimed, “The Constitution specifically provides for the right of the accused to meet his accuser.” Amash countered that the amendment is applicable during a trial in criminal prosecution, and even if it might be applied in an impeachment, its place would be in the Senate trial. (Impeachment in the House is analogous in some ways to a grand jury indictment.)