Excellent! Thank you, Herbster! They can stop one computer but they can’t stop them all. In your face, Obama pukes! You’re messing with the wrong people.
Unfortuantely for you, I already found that interview earlier this morning, and I've listened to a good chunk of it. Now maybe I missed it somewhere, but I didn't hear anything about any affidavits. Here's what Hagmann ACTUALLY says at the 3:00 minute mark of Hour 3, when he's asked to recap his evidence:
"We have, in addition to that, statements, interview reports from several, there's seven different documents that reflect interviews by people employed" by several networks stating that they were told by their supervisors that the issue of Obama's birth certificate and eligibility were off-limits.
Not affidavits. Definitely not "6-7 affidavits." And he doesn't claim the unsworn, unsigned statements say anything about Obama lawyers or the FCC.
Now, he does talk about the FCC in Hour 2, I think, and he claims that his secret research makes him believe that threats of FCC action were bandied about, but he doesn't say that any of that came from the statements he got.
Also, I think Hagmann demonstrates how seriously his "investigation" should be taken when he starts talking about "Quarles Harris" at around the 42 minute mark of Hour 2. He explicitly claims that Harris was a federal informant who was privy to Obama's passport information and so on, in what all amounts to a REMARKABLY inaccurate relaying of the actual reported facts about Harris. He appears to have taken some shoddily-researched WorldNetDaily articles and online rumor, and spun it as "investigation," and he got it very wrong.
I also found it hilarious when Hagmann said that people shouldn't trust what they read on the internet, even on his site, unless they can validate it somehow. And yet here's Hagmann, talking up secret evidence, anonymous informants, and hidden documents that he claims back up the story he's spinning, but which he declines to let anyone see. Whether you believe this story hinges ENTIRELY on whether you trust Hagmann and his phantom evidence. And even he seems to have forgotten about these claims since August 2009.
And in the one case where he *did* offer up a claim that could be externally validated, in the case of Leiutenant Quarles Harris, it turns out that Hagmann was full of crap.
Again, you claimed, several times, that "Doug Hagmann says he’s got 6 or 7 (can’t remember the exact number) affidavits corroborating the claim that Obama’s lawyers threatened the media heads with annihilation by the FCC if they reported on the eligibility issue - once before the election and once after." Where in that interview did Hagmann claim that?