If it turns out that he was the leaker, please don’t take that as some sort of validation for your bizarrely selective approach to conspiracy theories. At this point I don’t see how your circumstantial evidence that he may have been the leaker is so much stronger than the circumstantial evidence that the Russians were involved, unless you throw in the actions of the “deep state” (a gigantic tell of a phrase) and you buy that the “MSM” (another tell) is some sort of monolithic, coordinated liberal machine. Media people and government employees tend to be liberal just like military guys and religious people tend to be conservative. It isn’t everyone, just most of them, such that the preponderance of political leanings influences the institutions that house them.
My point is, you may be right, but for all the wrong reasons.