"About two years before the 2008 election, 0bummer engaged the services of a large and powerful law firm to hide and destroy any records that might be used to challenge his claim of being a natural born citizen.
"That he would do this demonstrates
"a) that he is NOT a natural born citizen, and
"b) the depths of corruption that 0bummer is willing to engage in."
Those are a couple of inferences you might draw from his conduct. But they are not the only possibilities.
There isn't anyone among those to whom Lucy's post is addressed who is not aware that there is a reasonable hypothesis that the guy in the White House is not the son of Barack Hussein Obama Senior and/or Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama).
By itself, that wouldn't provide any evidence as to where he was born. And on the eligibility question, at least one element of the hypothesis would completely eliminate any shred of the Vittel argument--assuming his father is exactly the kind of multi generational American citizen Vittel and the authors of the Constitution and the Founders had in mind when they used the phrase "natural born citizen".
And it would further not affect the argument that there is some other person, born in or out of the country, who has the birth name of Barack Hussein Obama, II. The guy in the White House might well have been born the son of a multi generational American citizen--in New York City; or in London; or even in Mombasa Kenya. He might also have been born the son of a person who is not anywhere on the horizon. At present, there isn't really sufficient hard evidence to come to a conclusion.
Lawyers study the law and rules of "Evidence" in law school. Somewhere along the way we hear about "statements against interest".
For example, the driver who is sued for damages in an auto accident on the theory that he ran the red light--even though there is no other third party witness or camera or other evidence that he in fact ran the red light; the driver's out of court statements to third parties that he in fact ran the red light are admissible as "evidence" that he did so.
Sure, that kind of evidence could be refuted by the person who took the picture of the accident showing the light was not red; but absent clear admissible legal evidence to the contrary, the statements by the driver that he ran the red light would be the best evidence that he in fact did so.
What we have here is a long history, supported by a number of affidavits in the several lawsuits that have been filed in the several lawsuits on the subject, which testify that the guy in the White House has gone around in a wide range of forums ranging from casual bar meetings to organized political gatherings, telling people that he was born in Mombasa, Kenya.
So at the worst, those affidavits are presently the best evidence that is where he was born. They could be leveraged to put the burden of proof about where he was born on the man in the correct kind of legal proceeding.