Bennett is an accountant by training, but doubtless had a staff of top lawyers advising him, especially ones on loan from the Romney campaign advising him on how a federal judge or jury would interpret the HI “authentication.” I expect that they told Bennett he would get the same ruling as Judge Carter predicted he would give in dicta which is if HI authorities say Barry was born in HI, then even if Kenya were to certify Barry's birth there Judge Carter would rule that it is still established as a legal fact that he was born in HI until proved otherwise in HI.
The Hi authority refused to say that Obama was born in Hawaii. That’s the point. A critical point, since Hawaii law says that if they CAN verify something, they have to.
I have spoken with 3 attorneys regarding the legal reasoning on this, and it is sound. I first realized it was sound when I saw that the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee’s lawyer - one of the Fogbowers - fashioned his request specifically to accommodate a legally non-valid Hawaii birth certificate. So I’ve got 4 attorneys agreeing with the legal reasoning - including 2 whose previous legal arguments depended on the claims on the HI BC being true and one who actually acted on Obama’s behalf. That’s quite a consensus.
In addition, I’ve spoken to the counsel for NE’s SOS John Gale, who at first denied that Bennett even asked for Obama’s date of birth to be verified. Ultimately he said he didn’t have to care what Hawaii told Arizona, Obama could have a Christmas card from when he was little that proved where he was born, and even if Bauer, Villaigarosa, and Germond were sitting in jail for committing perjury and fraud with that OCON Obama would still be on the ballot because Nebraska law never says that the OCON has to be LAWFUL (non-perjurious and non-fraudulent). In short, even that lawyer could not refute the legal reasoning and had to resort to “Ït doesn’t matter anyway.”
At this point, given what’s happened with these lawyers of every stripe, I doubt that any lawyer told Bennett the legal reasoning was faulty. They may have said no judge would ever act on it, just as many might have advised Jews that Hitler would never relent based on their pleadings. But that is a judgment of the judge and Hitler, not of the people making the pleadings or pointing out the legal facts.