I would think it depends on the motive of Andrew. Was he actually sending every information he had for the purposes of investigation to Joe Kent? Or was he sending some info, including the screenshots knowing it was going to be used for something other than investigation?

My assertion is that if it was the latter, then it would qualify as leaking. Do you agree?

If you agree, now lets examine which of those two cases applies here. Lets say it was the former and he sent every piece of information to Joe Kent and according to him Joe Kent told him to make it public.

Pause for a second. If it was every information he had that might be useful for an investigation, would Joe Kent say "Release it to public" or would he be saying "Send it to FBI" ?

I would say that "Release it to public" is an answer appropriate only if Andrew took specific information to Joe Kent. Like the specific screenshots.

Thats factor one to suggest it was not the former.

Factor 2: Lets say you sent every piece of information you had to Joe Kent because he is a guy in government you trust. Lets say a week or two later, some of that information is now public and is used to build the whole conspiracy narrative . What would you do? Would you be outraged? Would you feel betrayed?

Or, would you chime in and confirm that indeed the screenshot is real?

Thats what Andrew did - he confirmed that the screenshot was real, giving Candace's viewers what felt like an independant verification of the screenshot.

So again it suggests that Andrew was intending to "leak" it.

This adds an extra level of complexity. The general feel I get is that Andrew portrays himself to be not subscribing to the idea that Israel killed Charlie. So why would he leak this stuff? The answer I find most plausible is that Andrew is not being honest and that his ostenible position is just for optics. He is acting as the skeptic of the narrative who provides confirmation indirectly.