If they intentionally leaked nothing, this would be perhaps a reasonable approach.
The fact that they leak positive stuff sometimes, and coupled along with the fact that they run a global network of torture sites (and hacked the computers of their own congresspeople who are their oversight, then lied about doing so) means that they probably aren't as do-good and trustworthy as you seem to think they should be assumed to be.
Of course they're not do-gooders. It's a spy agency, shady stuff is their very raison d'etre.
I was questioning the original point made by AsyncAwait, which was that "CIA does very little guarding national security as far as I can tell." The "as far as I can tell" part of that comment makes the rest just silly, since making sure you can't tell is 90% of spy work.
I've put the "as far as I can tell" part in there precisely BECAUSE from what we CAN tell i.e. has been declassified or leaked, it pretty much all terrible shit that has nothing to do with protecting national security.
Of course there's a lot we can't tell, but given the stories we can tell the ratio of good/bad is way out of whack in favor of the bad, especially given CIA's tendency to selectively leak good stories about itself and its extensive declassified historical record, the amount of 'good' should be a lot higher than it is.
Destroying torture records for example shows that it is way more concerned with illegally concealing bad behavior than avoiding it in the first place.
The fact that they leak positive stuff sometimes, and coupled along with the fact that they run a global network of torture sites (and hacked the computers of their own congresspeople who are their oversight, then lied about doing so) means that they probably aren't as do-good and trustworthy as you seem to think they should be assumed to be.