- you're putting Larry/David/others in a no-win situation.
Say, for the sake of argument, he's never seen the documents before now, nor heard of this, how could he explain them? He could speculate about forgeries, or conspiracy, or any number of speculations, but that would sound even more hollow, and if he's wrong about a particular theory, he has now slandered someone. That's not a good strategy. Larry and David have both unequivocally and flatly denied Google's involvement. If you do not believe him, that is your prerogative. But saying "Explain this!" about documents shoved in their face that they have no idea about is not going to get any kind of useful response. The smartest thing he can do is say what he knows is true, that Google was not involved, that he has no explanation for any of this, as they just heard about it, and issue no further statement, pending some sort of new information that might actually help explain what's happening.
Now let's say for the sake of argument that Google WAS involved... its' the same thing. Holding the documents up and saying "Explain" will result in precisely no new information, because, presumably, they would not be permitted to say anything about it.
So you have a situation where, if Google did collude, they can't say, and if they didn't, they don't know where these documents came from, or why, and therefore can't say.
Really, who can, without further information coming to light?