If the document is never admitted as evidence, there can not be any testimony about that document, idiot.<quoted text>All You do is present baseless claims &, a homework assignment for someone else to do, to get the answer for you! Nothing you you say is factual in the slightest sense of the word. The man was sworn in under oath so if he presented fraudulent documents, he would've committed treason already. You have a problem facing defeat. I know it's nearly killed you on that 2nd round landslide victory. Face it, your republican policies are the laws of " Little House on the Prairie." Another person crying about a man that won fair & square but, was quiet as a church mouse when Bush literally stole an election. Get outta here DB.
How about submitting that document as evidence, dufus. The so-called "birthers" want that document in court. The Democrats will say and do anything to avoid submitting that document as evidence.
Why is that? Do you think it's because they know it's fraudulent?
How about you copy and paste the Democrat party line story about how Ann Dunham met Obama Sr in a Russian language class in September, 1961, from Wikipedia or Snopes or Factcheck, take your pick, and then tell us about Stanley Dunham being photographed meeting Obama Sr at the airport in Honolulu with he arrived in 1959.