> people want you to have.

Well, putting aside the observation that the documents speak for themselves, and ignoring the inaccurate claims made by leaders to the American people about surveillance, what impression should I have?

I believe that was a (not so nice) way of saying that Snowden had intentionally exaggerated his history in order to establish himself as more of an authority on these matters regarding things he did not actually have access to.

Personally, even if I disagree with most of what he did, I think that specifically was an understandable move as he seemed to be genuine about his beliefs and desire to spread his message.

The documents agree with the person you're arguing with and disagree with you and Snowden.

examples? There was not really any press vetting of the information so it's been difficult to evaluate the claims.

I do think it's troubling that major news orgs won't go near the details.