Quote from jem:
richter... this is all about the concept of foundation when it comes to evidence. I am talking logically not legally.
1. You have a scan of a document which purports to be from HI. It claims to tell you where Obama was born.
2. That document would have been created by sucking data out of some HI record in the records dept right?
3. That records dept is supposed to get that data from where?
4. Well the spot you could trust would be the original birth records.
We were told HI had them but would not produce them without a tangible interest.
5. Now it seems the new governor could not find them but there is a notation about them being there.
So. what you have is a scan of a document with data that could have come from non reliable sources.
So how the heck does anyone know where Obama was born if HI can find the originals? Or at least won't produce them?
So a loon could argue... the data was solid and got in the computer in the 70s.
A birther could argue it was put there 3 years ago.
A lawyer would say - lay the foundation of where the data came from. is it trustworthy on the issue of birthplace.
If it is let it in to the record. I really do not know how anyone can reach a conclusion without knowing the data and knowing how trustworthy it is? Its odd to me that so many lefties on TV act like they are superior to birthers when I think they are all idiots.
sorry - that should have been ricter.