I wish I was responding to a transcript not a paraphrase but this will have to do for now:

Wainstein said that WikiLeaks had shown itself to be fundamentally different [from the press] in three ways.

[1.] While traditional media outlets focus on publishing newsworthy information to educate the public, WikiLeaks focuses on obtaining and disclosing any official secrets.

I don't see how the other things that you do are legally relevant to the question of whether or not its legal for you to do THIS thing. That is sort of like saying "its OK for person A to commit this crime because he is wealthy and is otherwise an upstanding member of the community but person B is a "criminal" and only exists to commit this crime and therefore he is culpable for his actions." Frankly, thats fucking bullshit.

[2.] The media also gathers news about sensitive areas of government operations through investigative reporting, he said, while WikiLeaks uses encrypted digital drop boxes to encourage disclosures of sensitive government information and circumvent laws prohibiting such disclosures.

You can write "Steal This Book," wherein you explain how to commit crimes and advocate that people commit them. You cannot, however, provide a specific person with specific advice knowing or intending that the person commit a specific crime. The former is freedom of speech. The later is conspiracy. As far as I know Wikileaks is an example of the former not the later. If they did the later, they have committed a crime.

[3.] The media also typically limits disclosures only to sensitive information that specifically relates to a particular story deemed to be of public importance. WikiLeaks, however, releases troves of documents with little or no regard for their relevance.

Wikileaks thinks they are all relevant. I don't think this gets you very far. Its ok to publish leaks as long as you can establish that they are relevant?

In his written statement to the committee (.pdf), Wainstein also cited Assange’s oft-quoted remark that he “enjoy[s] crushing bastards” as evidence that his release of sensitive information is “more personal rather than simply a public-minded agenda.”

I don't know the context for this remark but find me a police officer who hasn't muttered something similar.

Furthermore, WikiLeaks’ distribution of an encrypted “insurance” file, containing secrets that would be revealed if anything happened to Assange, “reflects a willingness to use his leaked documents for extortion and personal protection rather than simply to advance the values of transparency and public awareness,” Wainstein argued.

This one really bugs me. You have senior politicians publicly calling for this guy to be killed and then you accuse him of "blackmail" for having an insurance file. Its like a school yard bully who complains to the teacher when his victim fights back. The fact that they would make this argument is just disgusting.

Congress Hears WikiLeaks is ‘Fundamentally Different’ From Media | Threat Level | Wired.com