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
   <[1]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