I'm not saying you misunderstood; I couldn't know that. I'm saying that in your reply you muddled them. When you say "it is A, not B", you're suggesting that one excludes the other. That's not the case; they're different things.

If you don't like his language, I'd suggest you critique the language instead of contradicting him on a point of analysis.

Look, it's the original commenter who used muddled (and misleading) language in the first place, not me. Whether their "analysis" or his "language" was more critique-worth is beside the point.

I wasn't confused by it. The lawsuit was mentioned as "for document theft" in the article. I thought he was clearly adding his interpretation of motive. Maybe it's just you?

To me it reads as spin, not simply "interpretation."