What little substance that's there sounds authentic in that all of this has been in the news for quite some time. It's the "interview" that doesn't seem authentic. Too much fluff and not enough substance. It's merely what we've all thought but had no real evidence.
That’s a fine distinction and you are right. The interview doesn’t ring true at all. Part of the content is more credible, though.
I don’t want to get into a ‘fake, but accurate’ discussion. I wouldn’t put my eggs in the basket of these interviews. They remain interesting, nonetheless.