The "whistleblower" was helped by the Intelligence Community

Historically a whistleblower has been someone in an organization with knowledge of illegal and/or corrupt activities.

That was the standard in the US Intelligence Community(IC) too until some time between May 2018 and August 2019.

At least until May 2018 the whistleblower form stated the following:

“The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee’s second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing,”

That means that only if the person filing the form had direct first hand access to the information could the ICIG take action. This makes sense since rumor and hearsay aren't admissible in a court of law.

But in the form submitted by the recent politically biased "whistleblower" lacks the above requirement and instead has two check boxes; one for having personal knowledge and one for having heard rumors and hearsay--though they don't phrase it that way.

It seems convenient that during a time when the Obama appointed former head of the CIA is calling on government employees to report anything that Trump is doing that they don't like suddenly the IC changes its policy and declares that rumors are just as good as first hand knowledge.

This may be one of the reasons that the IC was hesitant about sending the complaint to Congress; the acting DNI may have wondered who in the heck said that random IC workers could file complaints based on rumors they heard.

Clearly if any government employee can become a "whistleblower" based on what they say they heard then it'll be a lot easier for politically biased members to wage war on Trump.

Think about it.  In this most recent "whistleblower" report there is no first hand knowledge and the sources of the rumors that the "whistleblower" heard are anonymous.

In fact there's a good chance that, like Adam Schiff's opening remarks, most of it is made up.

For example the "whistleblower" speaks as though when Trump was talking about a Ukraine prosecutor who had been fired he was talking about the current Ukraine prosector which wasn't the case according to the transcript.

Similarly the "whistleblower" incorrectly stated that Ulrich Brechbuhl was in on the call.

If those facts are wrong how can we trust anything else the "whistleblower" has claimed to have heard from anonymous sources.

This is clearly the Steele Dossier 2.0.  In both cases all the information was either unverifiable or shown to be incorrect and all of the sources were anonymous ones.

The real crime that needs to be investigated is why the IC decided to allow whistleblower complaints based on rumors and hearsay.

Given the amazingly political nature of the former IC heads under Obama it's not unreasonable to ask if the IC leadership below the top posts is more loyal to the Democrat party than they are to the Constitution.