The leaker of executive privileged material has been converted into a righteous whistleblower by a corrupt bureaucrat, Atkinson.
Has little to nothing to do with hearsay.
Suppose the receptionist at Grassley's doctor handed out his medical records, disclosing something he did not want to be made public - addict, alcoholic, medicated for schizophrenia. Leaking this is a violation of law. Grassley's position, if he is consistent, is that if that information is made public by an inspector general (it is OF COURSE in the public interest to know this!), the identity of the leaker must be protected.
He'd piss and moan that this is none of the inspector general's business, and he'd be right, but hey, now it's a whistleblower, not a leaker.
That’s a good analogy. The “whistleblowers” claim was not in the purview of the IGIC as it didn’t comply with the statute. Not to mention it was not an intelligence matter to begin with.