Objectively, past fraud history doesn't prove anything except that he did cross the border once (assuming he was not falsely convicted of fraud). MZ has also a nice long track of screwing partners without scruples. But this doesn't prove anything except that he did cross the border, and more than once. One should focus on the actual facts to determine the truth and not on past errors or misbehaviors.

For me, it was because he now has DLA Piper representing him. This is a prestigious law firm well known here in the Valley. If the evidence were fake, I do not think DLA would touch this with a 10-foot pole as it would sully their reputation and would not go passed the evidence gathering stage and be thrown out (before even a possibility of there being a settlement).

From the article: People now reading the emails are beginning to take them very seriously. "The emails don't read 'fake,' writes Henry Blodget at Business Insider. Felix Salmon at Reuters agrees. "The emails Facebook says are fake don't seem that way to me." In any event, everyone agrees that, if the emails are fake, it should be easy for Facebook to demonstrate that. "Facebook almost certainly has a forensic analysis of Mark Zuckerberg's hard drives and email boxes from this period, because these drives would have been the same ones analyzed in the Winklevoss lawsuit," writes Blodget. "Perhaps the drives show different versions of the emails in question--or no emails at all."

This is precisely what I am referring to:

The emails don't read 'fake,' writes Henry Blodget

Felix Salmon at Reuters agrees. "The emails Facebook says are fake don't seem that way to me."

Why does this matter? How it "seems" or "reads" to online commentators is irrelevant. What are these opinions based on - gut feelings?

|Why does this matter? How it "seems" or "reads" to online commentators is irrelevant. What are these opinions based on - gut feelings?

The reason it matters to most is transitive trust. Most people trust Reuters/Business Insider as more authoritative than themselves so if Reuters and BI signal that they are suspicious, then the public will be. If people begin to lose trust in Zuck, then they lose trust in FB then...

Careful--this is the same logic behind the demands for Obama's birth certificate. People and entities should in general not be obligated to defend every ridiculous claim that comes their way.