This would seem to assume that the contents of the leak are 100% true and 0% ambiguous. It doesn't seem that way to me.
And the questions of a personal nature seem relevant to helping judge some of the extraordinary claims that Snowden has made without documents (yet) to show as evidence - like that he had access to tap anyone, that he had access to find out every undercover asset everywhere, that they would send assassins after him, etc.
There is still a lot of this story that we don't know or can't yet understand yet and unfortunately it seems that some of this will rely on understanding the leaker and not just the leaked documents.
Character questioning is valid; however, although all parties here (Snowden, NSA, Booze-Allen, Internet cos.) could be dishonest, compared with the others, Snowden's motivation to lie is smaller, his risks for doing so are higher, and his ability to broadcast his message is weaker.
A fair assessment of character is almost impossible to make in such a circumstance, as anything Snowden has said or done will be cast in the harshest light. He is not the authority, the authorities are, and they'll always say he's wrong. Because of that, the only valid resolution is to demand more answers from the government and force an incontrovertible picture to emerge of what activities were and were not done.
And the questions of a personal nature seem relevant to helping judge some of the extraordinary claims that Snowden has made without documents (yet) to show as evidence - like that he had access to tap anyone, that he had access to find out every undercover asset everywhere, that they would send assassins after him, etc.
There is still a lot of this story that we don't know or can't yet understand yet and unfortunately it seems that some of this will rely on understanding the leaker and not just the leaked documents.