Assuming we're talking about a conspiracy to dethrone Trump, I would highly doubt someone would put themselves out there just because of partisan sentiment.
I just meant this person is a partisan for the Democrats, this is not a reluctant Republican or even a neutral person. I don't they did it out of some kind of "sentiment." My guess they have always thought that Trump is a "danger" and a "pretender" (which Pelosi actually just said) and that his policies are "not legitimate" to the extent they differ from the existing policy.
You have a fake whistleblower, making a false claim
I think the Kool Aid has infiltrated your eyes and ears 
What is a "fake whistleblower"?
The literal word would be "spy," or "leaker" or possible even "criminal" or "traitor." But what I'm referring to, is the literal failure of this person to have reported on conduct that was covered under the relevant whistle blower statute (the President is not a member of the intelligence community), which I could have forgiven if they'd just made the report to the IG. But they also leaked it to DNC partisans in Congress and someone, from this group: themselves, their lawyers or the DNC partisans in Congress illegally leaked it to the media.
It also fails in that there is ZERO protection under the statute for someone that leaks over policy differences, which - based on the Democratic witnesses - is what this boiled down to be. There was nothing on the call that was illegal, contrary to the oft repeated fake claim, the call didn't refer to the 2020 election it expressly referred to the illegal activities connected to the 2016 election and the media reported corrupt behavior of Hunter Biden (and the potential illegal behavior of Joe), the investigation of which is actually directly within the President's mandate. Ergo, it was a leak of a policy difference.
Do you doubt the existence of the person who reported the activity?
At this point, I have about a 5% doubt this person exists at all. Maybe a 10% concern that it's really an amalgamation of various IC community persons that were out to get Trump. And an 65% belief it's a real person that was very openly working with members of the IC on the project to get Trump. And at best a 20% belief they were a single person working alone.
If so, how could a non-existent person have made any claim, never mind a "false" one?
Same way Randall Stephens opened all those bank accounts and made all those deposits in the Shawshank Redemption. Or the way Andrew Young was the father of the baby that was really sired by John Edwards. Without bringing the real person forward, there's a lot of things that could be true about who or whom is actually behind a "whistle blower complaint" drafted by a law firm as a replacement impeachment road map.
Or maybe they were not really blowing the whistle when they blew the whistle?
They were definitely blowing a whistle. But what were they pointing at? I'm thinking something they thought they could make look worse than it was, where the primary "witnesses" were going to be permanent members of the deep state that at best "tolerate" Trump and more likely "resist" him notwithstanding the illegality of that course of action, and the President would have no way to defend himself and look guilty for "obstructing" the investigation. The fact that transcript came out immediately clearly screwed them up, and it let thoughtful people look at it and the WB account did not match on key points.
Through a less partisan lens, every single point raised by the whistle blower has now been corroborated by other witnesses. Sure, they could all be lying, all those career bureaucrats hired by Republicans and Trump's administration, as well as the whistle blower (all of whom must have collaborated with said whistle blower)
I just re-read the whistle blower complaint, and no, the "points" raised by the whistle blower were not corroborated, not "every single point" not even the majoriyt. Every error the whistle blower made was on the side of additional "nefariousness" on the part of Trump. Again, it's clear they had access to IC community records (which they may have accessed inappropriately) to draw up their time line of events, but the fact of the meetings wasn't in question and the conclusion they are selling didn't show up in the testimony. Honestly, their main "focus" was on interference in the 2020 election, which was not "corroborated" it was just left as an inference to be drawn. In fact, the WB clearly overstated facts that didn't occur about the call and made some claims that were just false
They seemed overly concerned with defending the DNC from allegations that the Ukrainians had interfered in the 2016 elections as well. Which was odd, since their defense created a bit of a road map into seeing the actual facts supporting that inference.