However, did Obama post actually post the certification image, or someone working for the campaign? If someone else, did Obama acknowedge it as authentic (in contrast to reserving some manner of "plausible deniability" if it were to have been demonstrated in some way to be fake? And if so, then by what law is his right to privacy waived with the partial disclosure (a) as a private citizen, and (b) as President?
I'd be gratified to learn that what you wrote is reliable but a difficulty is determining reliable interpretation of the law from run-of-the-mill legalistic hype and maneuvering (on all sides).
However, did Obama post actually post the certification image, or someone working for the campaign?
***It was obviously someone from the campaign.
If someone else, did Obama acknowedge it as authentic (in contrast to reserving some manner of “plausible deniability” if it were to have been demonstrated in some way to be fake?
***It was the fightthesmears.org website, owned by Obama and it obviously angled towards fighting some smear against him so he probably approved putting it up. However, the fact that it has been taken down is a bit of a blinking red light on the dashboard because now he can claim plausible deniability, especially if he throws one or 2 staffers under the bus as a result of this.
And if so, then by what law is his right to privacy waived with the partial disclosure (a) as a private citizen, and (b) as President?
***I dunno by what law it was waived, but it does follow common sense. I sure wish the media had enough common sense to validate such a position, but it is not to be. Whatever Obama says is what the media will do in their prostrate subservience to the CEL — Chief Executive Liberal.
That website often contains statements by Obama, is referenced at the WH press conferences, and has been cited in court as the source of Obama's bona fides.
Please keep up with all this at
naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
Excting stuff news on the Hawaiian front. Stay tuned.