For purposes of discussion, let's say he did take the data to leak. I'm honestly curious as to the response. From everything out there, nothing he took had been used for anything beyond espionage and counter-espionage in the manner that any sane person assumed was happening. Finding a motive (unless he planned to sell it, which I haven't seen any indication of, and would wildly change the story) seems tough. Was he really just taking it to leak, being a radical transparency advocate? Why just this?