Where I disagree with The Donald, and Dr, Jerry, is that just being an "abstract," doesn't make it a forgery attributable to the WH. They may be guilty as hell, but all they did was copy what HIDOH handed their lawyer, which is exactly why they sent a lawyer 7,000 miles to pick it up in person!
All they really would have had to do, if this whole thing were legit, is fax a certified copy of the bloody original LFBC. The fact that they will now not willingly release whatever the it was from which they "abstracted" the thing they gave the WH, is absurd. It is also contrary to the statutes of the Hawaii Uniform Information Provision Act
Furthermore, on day 1 of the release, the WH told everyone it was an "abstract," one time. Immediately thereafter, they began calling it a "copy," neatly allowing everyone to assume it was a true copy of the long form BC.
This is a giant scam. But in order to prove forgery, Corsi and Trump will have to see the original LFBC. If the "abstract" differs from the info contained in the records, it is a forgery. But, it still wouldn't prove that the WH did it, unless they can show how. (I know, I know, of course they did it!) Just WOW~!
Nope. The color .pdf document they release with the image of the security paper is not simply scanned. There are sections with different pixel size and other markers that do not happen by simply scanning a document. It was conjured, created from more than 1 source of image.
The grayscale document that the AP posted on the web was simply scanned and the document shows who created it and when and with what software. It is a correct representation of the paper document they were handed.
“All they really would have had to do, if this whole thing were legit, is fax a certified copy of the bloody original LFBC. The fact that they will now not willingly release whatever the it was from which they “abstracted” the thing they gave the WH, is absurd.”
Seems like Obama went out of his way NOT to “release” it because merely passing a privileged document from HIDOH to a person's personal attorney requires no waiver of privacy regarding any third party, such as the PUBLIC. Obama’s privacy is retained as far as HIDOH is concerned, IMO.
If Obama had waived privacy to some third parties, such as major news organizations, then that would have be a true legal release. The news orgs could have obtained the BC directly from HIDOH and known they were getting a BC which had not passed through the hands of Obama. The provenance of a BC is much better when it has not passed through Obama's hands for obvious reasons, but this would make HI DOH liable for the authenticity, not Obama.
As it stands now it is Obama, not HIDOH, who is on the hook for authenticity despite their supposed "vouching" for the BC Obama released. HIDOH did not vouch for the BC under oath and neither did Obama!