“I didn’t say he questioned the validity of the previous verifications.”
Fair enough.
“I said he acknowledged that the previous verifications were NOT legally compelling.”
That’s not how I read it. The only verification they had in their packet, as far as I can tell, is the copy provided as an exhibit in the objection.
“My inclination is to see if documents that were provided to other states could be provided to the State of Kansas so that we can make a decision with everything on the table.”
I read it as he just wanted his own hard copy. It’s not like he is saying “maybe we can get something more definitive.” Why bother to contact Arizona or Mississippi if he didn’t feel their verifications were not legally compelling?
There was no copy provided as an exhibit. In the part you quoted, Kobach says he made an inquiry for this information.
I have inquired as to what factual information was presented in other states, specifically Arizona and Mississippi, and there have been certifications, including one that is in our packet given to a court in Mississippi by the State of Hawaii ...
Neither the objector nor Obama's counsel provided that to him.
I read it as he just wanted his own hard copy. It’s not like he is saying “maybe we can get something more definitive.”
He acknowledged that Obama's lawyers failed to provide a "robust response" to the objection (as in, they provided NO evidence). But, he says specifically:
One option for this Board on the factual question might be to seek some kind of certification or some of the information that’s been provided to other bodies if we felt that was necessary to resolve the factual question.
This indicates that Kobach isn't confident he has enough information, not just a hard copy, to resolve the "factual question." But, no one was asking him or the body to resolve any factual questions. Their job is to respond according to law.
Why bother to contact Arizona or Mississippi if he didn’t feel their verifications were not legally compelling?
Because he wanted to see that the information was actually certified. That's the legal standard for birth evidence when it's actually presented to a legal body. That's why he kept saying they needed to "to seek some kind of certification" and "We could request the State of Hawaii and the other two states provide the information they have in a certified form."
The Objections Board already had three days to prepare for this hearing. They should have had this information, but they obviously didn't realize how weak Obama's response and their own was going to be in the face of this challenge. The only real "factual" information that mattered in the challenge was that Obama was born to a foreign national who did not have permanent domicil in the United States and who never became a U.S. citizen, and under whom Obama already acknowledged foreign citizenship on his own website. No letters of verifcation or certified documents would overcome these facts, unless it could be shown Obama had a U.S. father. Obama's counsel did not make this argument.