We don’t know what is on the form, and, if it somehow shows he was born on US soil, then the birth certificate becomes a non-issue. I know, it’s a long-shot that there isn’t something damning on the form, but it still is a possibility. Just as a good trial lawyer never asks a question of which he is not 100% certain of the answer, the birth certificate has slight possibility of making us all look like fools (and nobody knows how slight that possibility actually is). The fact that his father was never a US citizen is a sure bet. We already know the answer to that one, so that is the issue that needs to be pressed.
“The fact that his father was never a US citizen is a sure bet. We already know the answer to that one, so that is the issue that needs to be pressed.”
Agree completely. But that one fact alone, a fact that he admits, is already part of the whole argument. I agree, too, that it’s not a good idea for prosecutor or defender to ask a question to which he doesn’t have the answer; but that’s not the way an investigative reporter goes about his work. Somewhere along the line he’s got to ask questions that lead to other questions—limiting, slowly & deliberately the unknown unknowns.