The Times is trying to out the whistleblower's

So much for Maguire's pledge to do everything he can to protect the whistleblower.

The whistle-blower who revealed that President Trump sought foreign help for his re-election and that the White House sought to cover it up is a C.I.A. officer who was detailed to work at the White House at one point, according to three people familiar with his identity.

The man has since returned to the C.I.A., the people said. Little else is known about him. His complaint made public Thursday suggested he was an analyst by training and made clear he was steeped in details of American foreign policy toward Europe, demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of Ukrainian politics and at least some knowledge of the law.

[...]

The C.I.A. officer did not work on the communications team that handles calls with foreign leaders, according to the people familiar with his identity. He learned about Mr. Trump’s conduct “in the course of official interagency business,” according to the complaint.

  Julian Barnes @ NYT

That gives everybody plenty to get started with! And did those three people familiar with "his" identity say it was a man, because the Times report never says he or she - always he, him, his. So, presumably, we can rule out a woman.

Lawyers for the whistle-blower refused to confirm that he worked for the C.I.A. and said that publishing information about him was dangerous.

Well, no shit! And put a nice damper on any potential future whistleblowers.

Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The New York Times, said The Times was right to publish information about the whistle-blower. “The role of the whistle-blower, including his credibility and his place in the government, is essential to understanding one of the most important issues facing the country — whether the president of the United States abused power and whether the White House covered it up.”

And those are jobs for the IG, the DNI, and the Intel Committee, Dean. The IG already vouched for the whistleblower's credibility.

Christ.









...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

Since the article’s publication online on Thursday, the newspaper has added the context that the White House already knew where the whistleblower was employed.

  Guardian

But so far, at least, the White House hasn't leaked that information.

Identifying information published in the paper “recklessly narrows that universe of suspected whistleblowers to a very few people,” said Jesselyn Radack, the director of national security and human rights at the Whistleblower and Source Protection Program. “This has a very chilling effect on anyone who is even thinking of blowing the whistle and thinking of doing so through the proper channels.”

[...]

Radack, who has represented national security and intelligence community employees – including Edward Snowden and John Kiriakou – who have been investigated and charged under the Espionage Act, said the New York Times had left the whistleblower particularly “vulnerable” because they “are up against the full force of the entire executive branch”.

[...]

Mark Zaid, an attorney representing the whistleblower, wrote on Twitter: “Publishing details about whistleblower will only lead to identification of someone, whether our client or wrong person, as whistleblower. This will place individual in much more dangerous situation, not only in their professional world but also their possible personal safety.”

[...]

Danielle Brian, the executive director of the not-for-profit watchdog Project On Government Oversight, argued that the move was unnecessary because the whistleblower’s credibility “was already stabilized by the Inspector General and the Department of National Intelligence”, which recognized the complaint as urgent and credible. “We didn’t need the New York Times to tell us what agency this person came from,” Brian said.

And they didn't do it to boost his/her credibility. They did it because they went snooping for a scoop.