Birthers and Anderson Cooper, Liar: Eliot Spitzer More Honest Than Anderson Cooper?

CNN iss The Liar Network, totally uninterested in "the truth", but only in propaganda. Yes, just "keeping themm honest". CNN proved it again tonight.


First, let me go back to my other life as a lawyer. The suject we are talking about is Barack Obama's birth certificate (the "long form", hospital certificate you get everywhere but in Hawaii). What is the BEST evidence of that birth certificate? Obviously, it is the DOCUMENT itself. That elementary principle is totallly lost on Anderson Coo[per, and the other liars at CNN (The Liar Network).


Yes, I have just told lyou the BEST EVIDENCE rule (in essence). That is the rule of law that says that a document itself is the best evidence of its existence and contents. The rule will ordinarilly not allow even a copy of a document without evidence of what happened to the original. The rule will certainly usually not allow ORAL "evidence" of a written document to be used in place of the original document (very analogous to the hearsay rule as to that kind of SECONDHAND testimony as to the observations of someone else). Now there are, of course, exceptions to requiring the original document, and one of those exceptions is a certified copy of an official or business document (like medical records, etc.)--since the origiinal documents are not usually releaseed. In these days of computers, the "original" document may not even exist in paper, "hard copy". Still, the original principle still applies--just adapted to the modern world. Especially if the original document can be obtained (or a certified copy), a court will NOT accept ORAL testiomony as to the contents of a document based on "observation" of the document. Any other rule would be absurd. The law is usually not absurd (with exceptions), but CNN and Anderson Cooper ARE ABSURD LIARS.


Yes, CNN decided to "dig" into the question of Barack Obama's birth certificate, except CNN did not really "dig". Instead, CNN set out to provide PROPAGANDA against the questions and assertions of Donald Trump. Anderson Cooper is preenting tonight (promos--won't catch me watching) the "conclusive" interview with a former official of Hawaii ("Repubican" being emphasized, as if that means a damn thing, which it does not). That offiicial was presented by CNN, and Anderson Cooper, solely to BOLSTER the assertion that Donald Trump is wrong by ORAL assertions that such official "saw" the document. Presumably, the official will not give DETAILS of the document that might be used to check its authenticity. Indded, the official almost certainly made no effort to look into the authenticity of whatever document she saw, other than to just assume whatever document she was shown was authentic. You can see why this ORAL interview provides NO EVIDENCE that Barack Obama has a "real" birth certificate with authentic information on it. It is not "information" that would be accepted in ANY court in the land. But Anderson Cooper, liar, is presenting it to you as conclusive "evidence" that Barack Obama has an authentic, long form birth certificate on file in Hawaii. As stated, Anderson Cooper is a liar. That kind of made up BOLSTERING is NO EVIDENCED of ANYTHING, except that CNN is merely a propaganda organization. You may remember that I once heard Bill O'Reilly assert that he had seen the original birth certificate. I again call Bill O'Reilly a liar, because he is either a liar or someone broke the law to show it to him (plus, he has not repeated that assertion, which I heard him say way back two years or more ago). No, I am not calling the Hawaii ex-official a liar. How would I know. I am just saying her ORAL assertions are NOT EVIDENCE of anything (just as there appears to be no evidence Obama was born outside of Hawaii). Q.E.D. Anderson Cooper is again convicted of being a sanctimonious liar, and CNN of being The Liar Network.


Remember when CNN sent a TEAM to Alaska to "invstigate" whether Sarah Palin's baby was really hes (MUCH less of a plausible "issue" than Obama's birth certificate). CNN and the media would not be satisfied until they forced Palin to admit that her daughter was pregnant. Did CNN "dig" like that into Barack Obama's birth, with the idea of getting the "truth"? Don't be silly. The LAST thing CNN is interested in is the truth. CNN simply went to Hawaii to BOLSTAER the "caSe" that Barack Obama was born in the United States, without even attempting to get the BEST EVIDENCE (the actual document, or a copy). As stated, I don't see ay evidence Obama was born outside of Hawaii, but I have to admit that CNN and Obama are doing their level best to convince me otherwise.


Yes, Eliot Spittzer (I did see this to aovid watching Anderson Cooper) presented the person CNN sent to Hawaii to "dig" into the question. What digging? There was no evidence of any "digging". What was evidennt was that attempt to bolster Obama that I told you about (when CNN would be demanding Bush produce the brith certificate). Spitzer (to his credit) kept asking whether OBAMA could get whatever document was on file and release it. Reluctantly, the CNN "reporter" (in his dremas) admitted that Obama could do that, but did not want to do it because--AMONG OTHER UNSTATED REASONS--doubters would not be satisfied. This is "digging"? Give me a break. In facc, every time Spitzer brought it up (that all Obama had to do was GET THE DOCUMENT), the "reporter made sure and say that Hawai regarded the short form "certificate of live birth" as the "legal document", and that Obama would have to enter a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request to get the doocument in five days. .........................................HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Sorry, I was momentarily incapacitated laughing at the liars of The Liar Network. Is CNN really trying to tell me that Obama cannot call up the Attorney General of Hawaii (who PROMISED to get to the bottom of his) and tell him or her to release a copy of the birth certificate? CNN, you really are trying to convince me Obama was not born in Hawaii, aren't you? Or you are trying to kill me with laughter. One or the other. Obama could release this birth certificate. CNN reluctantly confirmed this. He just does not want to do it, but it is ridiculous to suggest--as the liars at CNN are doing--that ORAL descriptons of the birth certificate are an acceptable substitute for the document itself. No court in the land would accept that, and I don't.


Why do I say Spitzer is MORE honest than the truly despicable Anderson Cooper? Well, Spitzer kept saying, ovre the attemts by the CNN reporter to deflect the issue, that Spitzer does not see why Obama does not just end this and RELEASE THE DOCUMENT (which Trump, by the way, is saying). Spitzer is the guy--the former Democratic governor of New York who had t resign in disgrace because of being a customer of a postitution ring of the kind he had previously describbed, as a prosecutor, as the type of operation usually part of organized crime--Spitzser is the guy who said, ON CNN, that he is a person "with stong views", but "not biased". I could not make this stuff up. Doen't it make yor head hurt, like those continued assertions that we have no "side" in Libya in our military operations other than humnaitarian purposes, but that we insist Gahdafi go by use of other means. My head almost explodes thinking of those statements, and of Stipzer's. But Spitzer is STILL more honest than Anderson Cooper, as Spitzer rightly put hiis finger on the problem: if the "birth certificate" exists, then the ONLY real "evidence" of that document is a verified copy of the actual document (failing that, a pirated copy, Wikileaks style). CNN attempts to suggest otherwise are simply partisan propaganda.


Now you may remember that I have called people who believe there is any evidence that Obama was born outside of Hawaii "kooks" (part of my "you are a kook if:" series). Am I backing off of that? Nope--at least not until CNN convinces me. Why not? Look. Say there is NO birth certificate (no "real" one from a hospital). That is NO EVIDENCE that Obama was born outside of Hawaii. And there is substantial, if perhaps not conclusive, evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. SPECULATIOIN is simply not enough to be a "campaign issue", or to realy suggest that Obama is a fraudulent President of the United States.


But why does Obama simplly not release the birth certificate? Well, I think there is a better than 50% chance that there are PROBLEMS with Obama's "birth certificate". Nope There is no reason to believe that one of those problems is that Obama was actually not born in Hawaii. But what if the document is not really a "hospital" birth certificate, or if some of the information is obviusly false? What if no "real" birth certificate exists, but only some sort of dcoument from family and associates certifying to Obama's birth? Midwife? The possibilities are endless. My younger daughter--now a high powered lawyer in a big New York law firm--tells me that Hawwaii is NOTORIOUS for being slipshod with papterwork, and other official things. How much worse would it have been back in the early 1960s, when Hawaii had just become a state. Is this why Hawaii does not even use "long form" birth certificates? Yes, my daughter knows about Hawaii. She graduated from the University of Hawaii, before going on to the University of Virginia School of Law.


Note that merely the existence of SOME "birth certificate" is not really the issue here. WHAT KIND? Anything less than a copy of the document is not good enough.


Remember Dan Rather? He insisted that FORGERIES of documents were good enough to "convict" Bush The left, including CNN, were reluctant to condemn Rather and CBS, since they agreed with Rather that the "truth" was what they WANTED IT TO BE. Donald Trump is not being nearly as evil with Obama. But the left--true to form--would rather argue that ORAL descriptions of a document, as well as forged documents, are just as good as the real thing than demand that the real thing be produced--the only logical conclusion (as Trump and Spitzer agree).


Nope. No proofreading or spell checking (eyesight)