There's a difference between being harmful to an administrative agenda, and harmful to people. It's one thing to publish a leak detailing corruption which "har

There's a difference between being harmful to an administrative agenda, and harmful to people. It's one thing to publish a leak detailing corruption which "harms" the agenda and reputation of the criminals engaged in it. Boo on them. "That which can be destroyed by the truth should be." It's another to publish a leak that reveals identities and plans made in secret, and gets people killed. Somewhere in the middle are leaks like yesterday's transcripts of Trump talking to Australia and Mexico: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/australia-mexico-transcripts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/austra... Perhaps world leaders should be able to speak together confidentially, and perhaps these transcripts will 'harm' people in the future when politicians are less able to communicate frankly because the conversations are public.