The way this is presented really isn't cool. If the Post has evidence to back their annotations, they should cite it or at least say it exists in other sources

The way this is presented really isn't cool. If the Post has evidence to back their annotations, they should cite it or at least say it exists in other sources they have access to. If the annotations are correct, they basically confirm the worst and most extreme interpretations people could come up with when this story broke. But there's no evidence presented in these slides, at all, to support the notes they've "helpfully" added. Where's this information coming from?