(B) the term “whistleblower protections” means the protections against and remedies for a prohibited personnel practice described in paragraph (8) or subparagraph (A)(i), (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (9) of subsection (b).
I don't think that covers spying on a president's phone calls.
In order to qualify for whistleblower protection, ALL the elements must be met. Only one of those is that the whistleblower be a first hand witness. The first hand witness requirement doesn't appear in the whistleblower statutes, it appears in the whistleblower protection statute.
As you point out, this whistleblower's complaint is invalid because it is essentially using the whistleblower statute to piece executive privilege. Nasty use of the law, nasty, nasty, nasty. Rule of law? What is going on is "break the law while claiming to follow it." This is what liberals do.
This whistleblower can be retailiated against too (firing is a prohibited retailiation in the whistleblower protection statute), because protection depends on being a firsthand witness. This whistleblower will claim whistleblower protection, similar to how McCabe sued for wrongful termination except McCabe didn't use the whistleblower statute. More abuse of the legal system.