leading up to the story. and again, this was weeks in the works. so our approach was twofold. one, this exfiltration had taken place more than two years ago. the spy was not in a plane, in the air, on the way to some undisclosed location, as we were reporting it. two, it was my information that the russians, once that happened, were aware of what had happened and therefore we were not letting the russians know something that they didn't already know. that was a factor. beyond that, there's the news value question here, right? that in one of america's most -- perhaps its most contentious national security relationship, that is with russia, the u.s. had lost very significant eyes and ears, and that has news value today. finally, we took a number of steps to withhold details that we thought might lead people down the path to identifying this person. now, "the times" and others, of course, reported things after us, and even went so far as to cite, as you said, a name and an address, information that we