WHY make a fake GCHQ slide?

[Georgi Guninski]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joint_Threat_Research_Intelligence_Group&oldid=670966374

Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group

In June 2015, NSA files published by Glenn Greenwald revealed new
details about JTRIG's work at covertly manipulating online
communities.[6]


On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 08:58:33AM -0400, Michael Best wrote:
> >
> > 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 <guninski at 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 <guninski at 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.
> > > >
> >