If Trump could control his criminal instincts, there'd be no reason for a whistleblower.

There is no whistleblower, not in the legal sense. In a trial, Ciaramella would not be considered a witness because his is not firsthand knowledge.

Bring on the Senate trial, where we will get to see the whistleblower exposed and then shamed and mocked. Then we'll get to see Vindman testify (again) that there was no quid pro quo.

Can't wait for Schifftless to answer a few awkward questions

So far, the imaginary whistleblower is as much hearsay as the pathetic hearing. He's about as real as manbearpig.