[Chewbarkah]

Does the statement below (posted today by SeizetheCarp on a thread about Obama pretending to sign up for ObamaCare) reveal why Harrison Bounel’s Soc Sec file, that previously existed, now “could not be found”? Orly Tait needs to direct a parallel query about Bounel and this SSN to the Secret Service.

“’His situation is unique,’ the official insisted. ‘The president couldn’t have used the DC exchange’s website because the databases these sites use to confirm insurance eligibility wouldn’t contain those sorts of records about him.’
“The Secret Service, the aide explained, typically scrubs personal records of U.S. presidents from credit, financial and historical databases when they take office, as part of a range of security precautions meant to protect the occupant of the Oval Office.”

Were the Harry Bounel records part of the “Historical databases” scrubbed by Obama’s Secret Service? (Maybe the SS lost them while blind drunk at a third world brothel.)

[SvenMagnussen]

“’His situation is unique,’ the official insisted. ‘The president couldn’t have used the DC exchange’s website because the databases these sites use to confirm insurance eligibility wouldn’t contain those sorts of records about him.’"

In a civil suit, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant once the defendant denies the allegations.

In an Presidential eligibility civil suit, it would be expected Obama would present his BC as proof he's eligible. The plaintiff can request discovery. In discovery, the plaintiff can subpoena primary witnesses for original documentation proving Obama has not maintained his natural born citizenship status throughout his life.

In the event a defendant or supporters of the defendant successfully scrub incriminating documents, the plaintiff can call rebuttal witnesses. The plaintiff does not have to identify the rebuttal witness or the evidence the rebuttal witness has available prior to trial. This prevents the defendant or supporters of the defendant from "Fuddying" the rebuttal witness.

It is left up to the jury after that. Does the jury believe the defendant has nothing to hide, so he scrubbed all incriminating documents? Or does the jury believe the rebuttal witness.