[RummyChick]

It definitely undermines his credibility when he claims that the fact that Sr was already married is not relevant.

It isn’t relevant to the argument based on his father’s citizenship. It is relevant if you are trying to argue that Obama’s UK citizenship is relevant..and apparently he is making that argument.

I am looking at all facts...and trying to understand the whole scenario...not just facts that support one position.

I keep seeing posters claim that there was a divorce so that makes the marriage valid. IMO, not really...but
they are missing the point that the marriage can be attacked collaterally after parties are dead. Would Obama do it if it suited his purpose? You betcha!

I am not surprised that posters here are buying Donofrio’s story hook line and sinker...but he is doing them an injustice to continue to ignore the reality.

[Seizethecarp]

Donofrio doesn't think Obama can wiggle out of his “admission against interest” that his citizenship at birth was “governed” by the 1948 BNA. But if there was no marriage or if the marriage was bigamous or otherwise not recognized under the 1948 BNA, wouldn't Stanley Ann just be a single unwed mother? Then it would come down to whether Obama II was born in Kenya or HI.

At least Donofrio has taken to repeating frequently that we don't have a whole range of documents that we need to establish Obama’s citizenship. He just won't mention lack of contemporaneous evidence of the Dunham-Obama marriage.