The information included e-mails, computer codes, annotations to code and the like. They were all of a part, not rife with "How's the wife?"-type correspondence but apparently the documents responding to a long-frustrated series of requests under the United Kingdom's freedom of information law.
This is only one of numerous factors indicating that the disclosures were not the work of a "hacker," as the media parrot without evidence, but a whistleblower on the inside.
This makes far more sense. As I pointed out when the story first broke, the emails were sent to BBC, which sat on the story for more than a month. At that point the files were posted to a pro-warmist website. Only after the files were erased from that site were the files posted to the Russian server and announced globally.
This is a clear pattern of someone trying to correct the problem from within, first by going to BBC, then posting to the "community" and going fully public only as a last resort.