Many people I know who support Edward Snowden and other leakers also support the leaking of Michael Flynn’s conversation with the Russian Ambassador before he was officially sworn in as the acting National Security Advisor, leading to his resignation.
At first glance that appears logical. As they all say when I protest, you can’t be for one and against the other just because it is against your political party’s interests.
They don’t seem to realise that there is a difference between the principled and honest leakers who risked everything to expose government surveillance, and the hacks who are leaking now by conducting government surveillance on a member of the President’s inner circle. One is motivated by a selfless wish to expose wrongdoing, the other to character assassinate a political rival.
But we can’t distinguish between illegal acts, they say, they should all be exposed.
But Michael Flynn didn’t even do anything illegal!
The Logan Act! They scream.
Ohhhh, the law that nobody has been prosecuted with since its creation in the eighteenth century. If Flynn is guilty, having talked to the Russian ambassador after Trump had won the Presidency, then shouldn’t Obama be prosecuted for touring several foreign countries before he won the Presidency in 2008 and talking on matters of foreign policy, as if he was already head of state?
Somehow I doubt they would approve of that.