To refute you about "the t***h" lets consider the whistleblower, here are a few points to consider.

The whistleblower—or “whistleblower” if you prefer—filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG), claiming to have it on good authority that President Trump had attempted to coerce Ukrainian President Zelenskyy into providing dirt on his (Trump’s) highest-polling political opponent for the 2020 p**********l e******n, that he predicated continuation of foreign aid to Ukraine on that act from Zelesky, and that the White House had then attempted to conceal that evidence by placing the notes from the conversation on a server reserved for sensitive information:

-Donald Trump, the president, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House Chief of Staff, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. ??????
-Fiona Hill, the former top White House Russia advisor, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Michael McKinley, former top aide to the Secretary of State, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Gordon D. Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the EU, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-William Taylor, the senior U.S. diplomatic official in Ukraine, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Laura Cooper, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, confirmed the whistleblower’s account.
-Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council’s head of European Affairs, confirmed the whistleblower’s account. What did he lie about?

All of the above are facts.

Now with those in mind, let me answer your question by posing some other questions to consider.

1. What does “there is not an actual whistleblower accusing President Trump” even mean? Clearly, someone filed the complaint with the IGIC, who deemed it credible. Someone also wrote a letter outlining the complaint to Sen. Burr and Rep. Schiff. (We’ve all seen the letter.) Whoever wrote that letter is the whistleblower. If it was actually Schiff who wrote it, or actually the IGIC who wrote it, then that person is a whistleblower.
2. If “there is not an actual whistleblower accusing President Trump,” then so what? Who wrote the letter, and who filed the complaint, and indeed whether anyone did, is at this point irrelevant. The credibility of the “whistleblower’s” claims is not in question: His claims have not only been confirmed, they have been confirmed by the president himself. There is no longer any hearsay: Lt. Col. Vindman was listening in on the president’s call with Zelenskyy and agrees with what the whistleblower says about it. (For that matter, the summary of the call that the president himself released also agrees with what the whistleblower says about it.)

So to summarize: it’s awfully hard to make a case that a whistleblower doesn’t exist, and if they don’t, it doesn’t matter, because everything that non-person said has been proven true several times over.

I believe you are confused with two different procedures. If you haven't heard a crime you're not listening, it's great how that works, isn't it. Every person has their own perspective and reality, I can point to the moon and the sun and tell you our planet is as round as they are, and you can simply "choose not" to believe it, what can I do, nothing, you can believe what you wish, your world, your reality. Think how happy you'll be when you go sailing and won't fall off the edge.

We had the red f**g warning, we had the phone recording, we have admittance by two, one being Trump himself, we have witnesses and accountings that gave the warning all its credibility. We have records the funds were withheld. The only thing we don't have is Trump's signed confession. It's a slam dunk, our only rub is that our Senate on the right v**e not for not listening to the hearing and v****g appropriately, rather they v**e for party above country. It's a sad day.

I have not watched PBS lately, so I cannot judge their honesty or bias. I used to think that NPR was middle of the road, but they have swung so far left, their commentary is laughable. The most middle-of-the-road source I believe is the Wall Street Journal.

Your opinion that Trump is a con man and a grifter is just "your confused opinion". You have no clear evidence, only your "presumption", like Sondlond. But I get it. You and butt-hurt Democrats are so upset with Trump's success that you have to shut him down. You need to stop America's runaway prosperity.