[Political Junkie Too]

What this says is what I have been saying since June 14, 2008: You cannot use a web facsimile of a single side of an alleged document as proof of anything, especially in place of the tangible, physical document in a court of law.

Therefore, Obama's web-released COLB is not proof of anything, and the various courts' citings of the Factcheck.org images in opinions is worthless.

Only a hard-copy of a document that can be independently inspected by individuals is proof of anything.

If this "punker" did any service, it was to undermine the credibility of the documents that Obama released as being just as suspicious as any other web document.

-PJ

[mcshot]

Good point and happy to see his own “proofs” are thrash too.

[Redwood Bob]

“You cannot use a web facsimile of a single side of an alleged document as proof of anything, especially in place of the tangible, physical document in a court of law.

Therefore, Obama’s web-released COLB is not proof of anything”

**********************

Correct! But if by some miracle a birther lawsuit is actually heard in a court of law, Obama will simply have the State of Hawaii mail a copy of the COLB straight to the court. At which point, YOU LOSE. Unless Polarik is right, and Hawaii has no documentation at all and a Vast Conspiracy is covering this up.

You need to come up with hard evidence to impeach the COLB. Internet rumors and unsubstantiated claims won’t do it.