Much of Snowden's resume is made up of exaggerations or outright lies.

[Igel]

123. Not really an issue.

What he said on his application, what the checkers verified, might be completely different from what he's telling the media.

If he's to be believed, he's a liar. He lied to his employer(s) in numerous ways in violating confidentiality and getting around safeguards. I don't know why it's a leap to think he's lying to the media. Perhaps because some want to believe him and what he says matches their confirmation bias so well?


Which is the point. Much of what he says the documents mean, much of what's going on around the documents themselves, whether we accept the authenticity of all the documents themselves, depend on whether he's telling us the truth.

In this, the "ad hominem" attacks are no different than many attacks on people on the 'net and in conversation. Don't like Limbaugh? Attack his character. Don't like somebody else who attacks those you support? Don't bother digging into how accurate their claims are, how much is spin, and how much the spin matters. Denounce their motives ("big pharma paid for this research, so the researchers can't be trusted&quot or their backgrounds ("the researcher had an affair and lied to his wife, he can't be trusted&quot or something else.

With Snowden, you can't check up on the truthfulness of much of what he says. So it stands or falls with his reliability.