The New York Times is reporting that the person behind the whistleblower complaint that has played a critical role in initiating the impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump is a CIA analyst who was temporarily serving at the White House. Its story includes other details about the range of knowledge and expertise of the whistleblower that makes identifying the individual behind the report child’s play.
Campaign Action
Though the identity of the whistleblower has been a closely guarded secret supported by both parties, and the whole purpose of a whistleblower law is to prevent the identity of someone filing a complaint from becoming public, Times executive editor Dean Baquet defended the release of the information, saying that the whistleblower’s identity is “essential to understanding … whether the president of the United States abused power and whether the White House covered it up.”
Just how that identity is critical to determining Trump’s guilt Baquet does not say. With both the contents of the report and the rough “transcript” of the conversation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky now public, it seems perfectly possible for everyone involved to determine the truth of the items cited in the complaint, and the magnitude of Trump’s transgressions, without any further reference to the whistleblower at all. It seems very likely that the intelligence committees will at some point conduct a closed-door hearing with the whistleblower, during which every effort will be made to prevent the release of anything that might point a finger at an individual—though that may no longer be necessary, because it seems impossible that the whistleblower will be able to remain on the job now that the Times has erected a flashing neon sign pointing directly at a very select subset of people within the CIA.
The attorney for the whistleblower responded by noting, “Any decision to report any perceived identifying information of the whistle-blower is deeply concerning and reckless, as it can place the individual in harm’s way.”
Trump may declare that the whistleblower is partisan. Republicans on committees may dismiss the complaint as hearsay. None of that is likely to make any difference. The evidence of the phone call readout alone is sufficient to justify the concerns raised in the original complaint. It doesn’t require someone to be partisan to raise a concern when multiple White House staffers are fretting that Trump just attempted to extort an ally in exchange for political dirt. There was no reason to ensure the destruction of this person’s life. But now it’s done.
The idea that the identity of the whistleblower would stay secret over the long term was likely always hopeless. As many experts have noted, the whistleblower probably knew that their career was over the moment the complaint was filed, no matter how many provisions exist in the law that are supposed to protect the identity of someone in this situation. The impact of the complaint has simply been too great to keep someone from getting out a shovel and digging.
But that doesn’t mean that identity should be dragged out now, at the beginning of the investigation. By focusing attention on the whistleblower at this point, The New York Times is creating a serious distraction in the midst of what should be a focused, careful examination of the evidence. It doesn’t matter if the report came from a CIA analyst or an ODNI janitor. The information in the complaint is all that matters now—and, under the provisions of the whistleblower protection act—all that should matter. There is no scenario where attention should be focused on “...his credibility and his place in the government” as Baquet insists. That simply does not matter one whit.
Dean Baquet is sending a clear signal to any other potential whistleblower considering coming forward to reveal a breach as large, or larger, than that pointed out in the Ukraine scandal. The law may insist that a whistleblower’s identity be protected. But The New York Times does not respect that law.
Reports indicate that The New York Times own attorneys advised against releasing this information. That was good advice.