I tried to list their motives under the GCHQ/UK motives, who would be
   more likely to fake the slide anyway and are the ones alleged of having
   leaked documents to the Independent on behalf of JTRIG, are a fairly
   likely candidate. Faking a slide like this would be a good way to
   inspire paranoia and divide a community, no? It got Cryptome to post a
   notice on their site for a week or two, alerting people to the
   possibility that they'd been targeted by GCHQ by visiting Cryptome.
   Sounds like JTRIG-ish paranoia, no?
   On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Georgi Guninski
   <[1]guninski@guninski.com> wrote:

     [2]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
   <[3]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
   <[4]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. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joint_Threat_Research_Intelligence_Group&oldid=670966374
   3. mailto:guninski@guninski.com
   4. mailto:guninski@guninski.com