The New York Times outed the Ukraine call whistleblower with this report and revealed he is a CIA employee, who once worked in President Donald Trump's White House. The whistleblower's attorney pleaded with the Times to not publish this information. Yet, on the same day that Trump suggested he would like to go back to the days of "spies and treason" and execute the whistleblower, the Times went ahead and published this report. The report is a kernel of a news story on the whistleblower that lacks fleshed out details. This is likely because the Times was concerned with competitive pressure as a news organization and wanted to be the first to report on the whistleblower's identity. But in publishing first, the Times arguably violated the anonymity of a source, even though he was not the Times' source. The Times has made weaker justifications for granting anonymity to intelligence professionals and Democratic Party officials so that they could express their opinions on policies or political developments without consequence. However, here we have the executive editor Dean Baquet suggesting this information had to be public so his credibility could be defended. The credibility of the whistleblower was dependent on the allegations in the complaint alone. It does not matter who he is. Unfortunately, this is not the first time this happened. The Times did this to CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou, who was the target of a leak prosecution. They did not want the New Yorker to publish a feature before them. They published a story on him before his sentencing, violated an agreement they had with Kiriakou, a source, and jeopardized his future. He very nearly lost his plea agreement with the government because of the Times.