https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-inquiry-09-25-2019/h_c385862471c31321bea73333e861e568
Before the whistleblower filed a whistleblower complaint, he filed a complaint internally with the CIA. This rose through the hierarchy as it was supposed to and reached the DOJ. The DOJ issued its report. In its report it uses the phrase "indicia of arguable political bias." It also concludes that the complaint is credible--which doesn't, as often interpreted, mean "true and to be believed." Just that it appears that it might be true and checking it out wouldn't be a bad idea.
Suspicion in some quarters is that when the whistleblower realized that his initial report wasn't subject to any protections and would, in due course, be chucked at the DOJ and cc:ed to POTUS, he filed the whistleblower complaint for the protection.
However, the complaint was still classified when somebody leaked it and broke the oath and conditions of his/her security clearance. S/he might be protected against retaliation because of the complaint, but if s/he did the leaking that's not part of the statute. Nowhere is there language like, "If immediate results to the satisfaction of the whistleblower aren't forthcoming, said whistleblower is authorized to leak the classified document and continue to be protected from any consequences, his/her anonymity still protected by law." (There's also little language saying "and the whistleblower cannot be prosecuted if s/he claims s/he was doing it for a good reason." Note that rare is the oath-breaker that fails to claim moral superiority for his/her falseness.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
