I think the entire point of the article is that damaging leaks happen all the time. It's just that when the leaker is someone low on the org. chart, it's a "dan

I think the entire point of the article is that damaging leaks happen all the time. It's just that when the leaker is someone low on the org. chart, it's a "danger to national security." When the leaker is someone near the top of the org. chart, it's "politics as usual", or "public relations".