Not all classified information is the same. The NIE isn't just classified, like say the number of spare jeep carburetors available to Battalion X deep in the Hurtgen Forest. It is one of the most highly classified document our intelligence agencies produce and its distribution is restricted to a small number of senior folks with a clear need to know. It is highly classified because of the fact that it represents the official intelligence communities assessment of intentions and capabilities of our enemies. Knowing where it is right and where it is wrong is of enormous value to the enemy.
Leaking it isn't like leaking a fact that everyone knows, such as the wife of x, who daily drives through the gates of the CIA, is, surprise, surprise, an employee of the CIA. This is a clear resounding unauthorized disclosure of highly sensitive information with the clear intent to damage national security.
That said, Congress' intelligence committees have oversight responsibility yet even committee members do not have automatic clearance; they, and to a lesser extent designated staff, must have the clearance, be on the access list for the information, and have a need to know. Because the records holder honored his request for the NIE, Larry Hanauer must have met all three tests. It is not that he requested the NIE that caused the suspicion; it is when he recieved the NIE (2 days before the NY and LA Times published their story).
Stay with me; there is a point to this.
The original NY Times report was published late evening on 10/23/06 yet by late evening on 10/24/06 the NY Times had already added several reports and an editorial. One 10/24 report was entitled Citing Spy Agencies’ Study, Democrats Seek Iraq Changes and they wrote this:
Representative Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said that while she could not discuss details of the classified National Intelligence Estimate, “Every intelligence analyst I speak to confirms that” the Iraq war had contributed to the increased terrorist threat. “Even capturing the remaining top Al Qaeda leadership isn’t going to prevent copycat cells, and it isn’t going to change a failed policy in Iraq,” Ms. Harman said on CNN’s “Late Edition.” “This administration is trying to change the subject. I don’t think voters are going to buy that.”
That makes the timing of Hanauer receiving the NIE interesting, even if he did not leak it to the NY Times. Several other Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, said on 10/24 they were only commenting based upon the news reports as they had not read the NIE. Yet Larry Hanauer had received a copy two days before the Times' original story and Jane Harman did not say she had not read it. What Hanauer getting the NIE when he did and Harman's comments on 10/24 indcates (to me) is they were at least tipped that the Times' was publishing a story about that particular NIE.