[d-ray657]

It's dangerous to follow a link to Youtube. You see the links on the side to the related videos and end up burning some time. The video linked above was hilarious. Thanks, Dave. I followed a link to another video that was almost as funny. Chris Matthews politely shredded Gordon Liddy. Liddy in claiming that Obama was born in Kenya, came accross as an addled old man when he tried to respond to questions about the conspiracy. (No ageism intended there, Rob. Just an accurate description. You'd run circles around that doofus too.)

Not only are the claims lacking in logic, the birthers have to stretch the truth (uh, lie) to make their point. What Liddy referred to as a sworn deposition from Obama's paternal grandmother was an affidavit from another witness based upon hearsay. The witness claimed to have heard the grandmother state that Obama was born in Kenya. A review of the affidavit shows that the grandmother was asked a leading question through an interpreter. The question stated allegations that were partially true and partially false. She was asked whether she was present when Obama was born in Kenya, to which she responded yes. She later clarified that she was present at the birth in Hawaii.

That is the kind of question that I constantly warn witnesses about when I am preparing them for depositions or other testimony. The tendency is to hear the first part of the question and prepare to answer without hearing the whole question. In doing that, the witness would answer the question "were you present at the birth" without paying close enough attention to answer the rest of the question "in Kenya." I saw it happen as a rookie lawyer and vowed to never let that happen again. An objection to such a question would be sustained in court as an improper compound question, or as a question assuming facts not in evidence.

Sorry, to go on. I just don't like slick lawyering and I don't slick political operatives turned slimy talk show host.

Regards,

D-Ray