So assuming Snowden "borrowed" the slide from the NSA and he didn't
     get

     owned, the slide is _REAL_.

   I don't think I understand your mean, if we assuming it's real, it
   follows that it's real? I think I walked into a language barrier.

     Having in mind Snowden likely have large pile of slides, if he got
     owned, likely all/the majority of them would likely be fake.
     Is this plausible?

   Not necessarily, that's not how disinfo works a lot of the time.

     And did you missed the us-natsec trolling about the eu appearing to
     trust Snowden's slides (though sometimes they can't prove it)?

   No, there just wasn't much to respond to.
   On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Georgi Guninski
   <[1]guninski@guninski.com> wrote:

     So assuming Snowden "borrowed" the slide from the NSA and he didn't
     get
     owned, the slide is _REAL_.
     Having in mind Snowden likely have large pile of slides, if he got
     owned, likely all/the majority of them would likely be fake.
     Is this plausible?
     And did you missed the us-natsec trolling about the eu appearing to
     trust Snowden's slides (though sometimes they can't prove it)?

   On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 08:22:37AM -0400, Michael Best wrote:
   > No but as I and others have noted, he didn't look at all of the
   materials
   > he handed over to journalists and couldn't possibly be expected to
   remember
   > all the ones he did see well enough to possibly be able to ID this
   one as
   > altered or forged. He was only able to argue against the other
   documents
   > because he had never been in touch with the outlet releasing them,
   contrary
   > to their apparent belief.
   >
   > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 8:19 AM, Georgi Guninski
   <[2]guninski@guninski.com>
   > wrote:
   >
   > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 07:50:14AM -0400, Michael Best wrote:
   > > > As I think I said in the other thread, less specific charges that
   require
   > > > more specific proof and almost never leveled before a trial is
   set,
   > > because
   > > > it forces the issue to be tried in the court of public opinion,
   where a
   > > lot
   > > > of information can't be released lest it spoil an investigation
   or
   > > > potential trial. There's also the fact that there'd be little to
   gain at
   > > > this point by alleging that the slides are fake since there would
   be few
   > > > people to believe it,
   > > >
   > > > "NSA hasn't said it's fake" doesn't seem like a strong argument -
   > > > especially for a non-NSA slide. And again - *Snowden himself* has
   accused
   > > > outlets of releasing slides attributed to him that *he says he
   did not
   > > > provide*.
   > > >
   > > Likely the NSA would distribute fake slides just to discredit
   Snowden.
   > >
   > > Does Snowden deny the authencity of this slide?
   > >
   > > This slide appeared in _too many_ news AFAICT to get unnoticed.
   > >

References

   1. mailto:guninski@guninski.com
   2. mailto:guninski@guninski.com