[steviep96]

Ok. That’s a fun theory.

And how does that relate to this case? He is not on trial for fraud. None of the plaintiffs are claiming that they defrauded him. Occidental College is not a plaintiff.

[OafOfOffice]

Welllll, if the college documents say he was on a foreign scholarship he has a lot of explaining to do.

Then his explanation might be what is theorized that he used his dads citizenship to abuse the system. I was American but we needed the scholarship. We were poor, my mom could not afford much.

or it may be true he was foreign.

Either way it is relevant.

[rolling_stone]

Ok. That’s a fun theory.

And how does that relate to this case? He is not on trial for fraud. None of the plaintiffs are claiming that they defrauded him. Occidental College is not a plaintiff.

Uh did you read the complaint?

How about to impeach the witness Obama and show his propensity to deceive and possibly use other names? Your theories are fun too, you remind me of a couple of matchbook school of law and shoe repair attorneys posting here.

[rolling_stone]

I guess you don't read your own posts?

Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence