Kobach said he had something in his packet that was “given to a court in Mississippi by the State of Hawaii.” Appendix E doesn’t list the court as a recipient. Appendix E was an exhibit to show that the verification was missing language pertinent to the Federal Rules of Evidence, which explains why it was not legally compelling. Again, the lack of compelling evidence is why Kobach felt compelled to get his own letter of verification from Hawaii and it’s why he talked about contacting Mississippi and Arizone for CERTIFIED evidence. What part of that is unclear??
But Appendiz E was given to the Board by the objector - right?
And Appendix E is the Hawaii verification that was given to the Mississippi Court by the lawyers for Obama, right?
They are the listed recipients
“Recipient of Verification: Scott J. Tepper and Samuel L. Begley, attorneys for the Mississippi Democratic Party in Taitz et. al. v. Democratic Party of Mississippi [sic], et al, No 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA (S.D. Miss.)”
So are you saying that when SoS Kobach says “and there have been certifications, including one that is in our packet given to a court in Mississippi by the State of Hawaii certifying”, he is not talking about the Mississippi verification that was in the material submitted by the objector but a different Mississippi verification sent directly to the Mississippi Court by the Hawaii DOH?
In other words, you are saying that there are in fact four certified verifications (Arizona, MDEC, the Mississippi Court and Kansas).
Courts don’t do their own investigations, so someone would have had to request Hawaii send directly to the court a verification. That would be reflected in the docket for that case.
Why if he already had this new verification did he say “We could request the State of Hawaii and the other two states provide the information they have in a certified form.”? Arizona and Mississippi could not send him certified copies unless they decided to send him their original Hawaiian documents.
IMO, when he talks about the one in the packet, he’s talking about Appendix E, not some new verfication.
He would not know the provenance of that document. So seeking additional information would be the prudent thing to do. Looking at one of the other objections - Mr. Sawyer’s, they took a lot of testimony and evidence to determine the residence of a candidate, so I’m not surprised that they would try to get additional info before making a decision.