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.
   On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Georgi Guninski
   <[1]guninski@guninski.com> wrote:

     On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 07:24:00AM -0400, Michael Best wrote:
     > Can anyone poke a hole in my logic for any of the possibilities,
     or come up
     IMHO this is a potential hole:
     Assuming Snowden got the slide from the NSA, he didn't fake it and
     his
     slides weren't modified by others AFTER he got them, some of your
     options don't make any sense.
     I don't know if these are sound assumptions, but Snowden appears
     widely
     believed by non-us-natsec crowd (which call him a "traitor").
     As pointed out in another thread, the usa wants to torture Snowden
     for
     alleged crimes like "stealing classified stuff", NOT for
     distributing
     fakes.
     There appears to be quarrel between the usa and eu about
     surveillance:
     [2]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/12/digi_commish_oettinger_ad
     mits_eu_should_have_done_more_in_reaction_to_nsa_spying/
     EU Digital Commish: Ja, we should have done more about NSA spying
     I wish you call the EU "fake believers".

References

   1. mailto:guninski@guninski.com
   2. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/12/digi_commish_oettinger_admits_eu_should_have_done_more_in_reaction_to_nsa_spying/