It helps to know and understand the context of Kobach's comments. It's not an official statement. He requested a third verification letter because Obama's attorney's refused to provide any evidence of any kind in response to the ballot eligibility challenge in Kansas. Kobach knew about the other two previous verification letters but since neither was admitted as evidence, the Kansas Objections Board had no evidence upon which to declare Obama to be eligible to be on the ballot. He also acknowledged the language in the previous verification forms was not legally compelling. I believe that's why he asked if the information was "identical" ... which Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. obviously punted.
The eligibility challenged was dropped, therefore the board could take no further legal action, but by that point, they had already requested a letter of verification. It's not really their burden to produce evidence for a candidate and second, such evidence doesn't satisfy the legal precedent for defining NBC as was brought up in the objection. Kobach failed to explain what legal foundation he was going to use to make Obama eligible, but he didn't have to worry about it after the objecion was withdrawn. The objections board consists of three members, so Kobach's opinion on what the third letter said is simply a personal opinion and doesn't represent the legal opinion of the board who had statutory responsibility to make an official determination. The problems Kobach acknowledged about the AZ and MDEC letters also applied to his letter, so it's not clear how he would have reconciled those issues had the objection not been withdrawn. As far as making a statement to the media, this was simply a political statement to appease potential voters.
Thanks for providing that context. Do you have a link for Kobach’s acknowledgment of the problems with the previous verifications?