Does the House even need the whistleblower to testify at this point?

[Yavin4]

The parade of witnesses so far seem to corroborate everything that the whistleblower said and with first hand knowledge.

Impeachment is pretty obvious at this point.

[Turbineguy]

1. It's sorta become moot with

Trump proudly confessing and all.

[NanceGreggs]

2. I believe Adam Schiff mentioned last week ...

... that the whistle-blower's testimony would not be needed, as the facts he brought forward have been corroborated by other witnesses who have testified.

[jberryhill]

3. No they don't need it

The entire point of whistleblowing is to draw attention to illegal acts. Investigation of those acts is entirely sufficient without the testimony of someone saying “I heard that these things happened”.

[lettucebe]

4. No, he blew the whistle. First-hand witnesses have spoken up

That's all the whistle blower has to do: Blow the whistle.

[The_Counsel]

5. For All We Know, the "Whistleblower" May Have ALREADY Testified...

...or am I the only one who has a feeling that may be the case?