In a lawsuit anything that can be used for the purpose of impeaching the credibility (or veracity) of a witness is admissable. It might be legally but not logically relevant. His religion is not relevant to Article 2, but he has made it clear he’s a Christian.
So here’s a Holy Man, a bishop, sworn, sayingt he’s a fuzzy muzzie. It’s something like trying to pass off a birth certificate as genuine, then saying, `No good? Oh never mind—here’s a better one. No? OK, try this one.
I can see your point but enquiring minds might want to know ... work with us a little bit.
Oh I get that. I am just trying to be realistic about how this would be positioned by the MSM if (and being optimistic, “WHEN”) they have to go to the American people and say: “This story has been active since August or earlier, and we are just now telling you about it because:”
Wolf Blitzer: “The case relies on testimony in one claim made by a panicked religious leader who is concerned about Obama’s “true religion” which had previously been debunked. The case hinges on a difficult to hear recording made over a cell phone from half a world away.”
James Carville: “That’s right Wolf, I listened to that recording and I couldn’t tell if she said she was at Obama’s birth or she knew where Hoffa was buried...”
We don’t need that kind of distracting drama. I say we just go with a frontal assault building the case based on the law. Let the fact that he hasn’t produced the birth certificate speak for itself.
After all, if he is a proven liar, its not going to matter much if he produces the birth certificate. This is very black and white.