> Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation suit and all of the concealed birth certificate documents would have to be produced in the pre-trial discovery process.
So, let’s say he released them as a part of pre-trial discovery? And let’s say that they showed him to be a Natural Born American (and maybe showed his Dad to be someone other than who he claims, and all kinds of other interesting-but-irrelevant information).
If that happened, the LA Times would be Poked.
Maybe not. Making statements maliciously to defame a person TO HARM THEM is a reason to sue. Making a statement of a politician who is making a claim that the pol themselves did not provide documentation to prove, documents the PRESS is required to be able to make and accurate statement is not the same thing. I don't believe that would fall under the grounds to be a falsehood maliciously created to harm the person.
Particularly since it is within the politicians power to prevent false info from being reported.
bHo could end all this rightful doubt, on an issue WE are rightfully allowed by law to know, is not producing those simple documents. What the press is doing would NOT be malicious as it is a question that can easily answered by the person in question with a simple form.
He is making the problem by not stepping up with a simple form or two.