Also, things like "maybe he screwed up the translation on purpose to keep McRae thinking there was a lead" hinge on Obama NOT being born in Kenya [edit: in his opinion].  So obviously that doesn't support the idea that he wasn't. 

And I don't know why you say the last possibility is not plausible.  I mean, are you assuming his foreknowledge of the answer?  I can see him being paid to go out there and follow a possibility, and then when it doesn't pan out thinking "what can I do to keep these guys' attention?" 

I mean, I really doubt he was the one who brought the idea to McRae in the first place.  If he was, I'd think it was much more likely he was scamming from the start.  But you have Berg saying things like "world leaders at this point--because I've talked to people over in England, over in Europe, they're aware of the situation, they say 100% he was born in Kenya, therefore they're not going to want to deal with him as president . . . world leaders know he's not qualified."  This guy did not come up with the idea, they did, and I think it's more likely they found him than the other way around, although I don't know this.  McRae himself said in 2004 that "everyone in Kenya" knew Obama was born in Kenya. 

Hence why I said it'd be a better arguement from your point of view then the one your presenting.   What you're missing is I never argued he definitly was born in Kenya, just simply there are plenty of factors and reasons out there for it being dumb to assume he wasn't if he refuses to release all the evidence he can to denounce it, espically very basic groundbreaking stuff with little to no effort to him.

This whole situation ALONE is reason enough of that because nobody can really track down this guys motives.

Also, it's not assuming foreknowledge of the answer, it's knowing what said answer means.

I could ask my boss tommorrow is we're going to close down because we're in a shitty location. (Which is the case and possibly the case.)

I don't have to foresee the answer to know that if he says yes.  I'm going to stop getting paid.

You're theory is that he told the truth, only later to try and scam Mcrae becuase he didn't realize then that meant it'd hurt his chances to get more money.... but would in hurt it later.

He did though... when he said he had those secret documents. 

If he says they were covering it up right there on the interview... where is the money in that?   You've already got a confession WITH someone calling them out as a liar.   Do you really need to look for Kenyian documents that may or may not exist.  Brother McRae likely just doing it for attention/political gain in the first place.

Every rare once in a while though, shit like this kicks up actual skeletons in the closet.  Sometimes the exact thing being alleged, other times unrelated things.

If anything a coverup there BENEFITS him financially as they need more proof.  While a straight up confession screws him out of more money... because they DON'T need him looking for documents.

Nor do I think he contacted McRae, I think he was likely contacted by them, and just found a way to use the situation to his benefit.

Heck, even if they really believe he's from Kenya.  Why pay for documents that may or may no surface even and make you look stupid, when you have a confession.  You don't need evidence when you get a confession, it's when investigations close.

I really disagree.  I mean, leaving aside the generally worse reliability of testimony vs. other evidence, they could poke holes in it like she was confused and thought he was asking about her son for some reason (instead of grandson).  In fact McRae actually makes that exact mistake in the tape, and they only refer to the subject of the question as "he" or "him" outside of that one sentence where he confuses son and grandson.  (Correction -- now that I look at it, he says "son" three times and "grandson" only once.) 

So really I don't think there would be any way people COULD just leave it at that -- they would surely seek more and better proof to really put the nail in the coffin.  And who better to recruit for that than their man on the spot who already produced such great results?  And then there's the talk show circuit -- "oh yeah, I was there when the lid blew off the fake president's secret history!"  Fame, fortune, and a book deal.  All forgone because he thought he had better chances of making it big as an African email scammer. 

I am utterly unconvinced of your position here. 

He doesn't really sound like the kind of guy that would make in on the "Talk show" circuit. Which, you don't actually make money on.

So, you'd have to hope he'd make money on a book deal.

A book deal... for what?  Being in the room when it happened?  That's a paragraph deal, not  a book deal.

I doubt the random driver who was there when kenedy got shot got rich or got a book deal and that was far more important.

Exactly. IQ tests are useless, its one of the first things you learn in psychology Not that I would doubt the idea that TheRealMafoo is an intelligent guy, he was always one of the more respected members of this site IIRC

OT: there are plenty of idiots, so why is it surprising to you?

Well, ha, granted the guy is not that big a wheel.  But the situation is totally different from Kennedy's driver, because it wasn't an assassination, it was a coverup.  Which he helped blow the lid off of.  And it's not the 60s.  And people who go around cable news doing interviews seem to make money somehow.  I'll admit I doubt that guy could write a book about it if the phone interview was the extent of his involvement ... which I doubt it would be. 

What about the rest of it?  You know, my direct rebuttal to what you said earlier ... that you completely ignored? 

I ignored it, because it's just not true.  At all.  It's already been proven.

That's basically what happened, anwyay.  McRae thought he had a confession and stopped there and didn't pay for the stone cold documents.  You think with an even more solid reason he'd be more likely to get more evidence?  Doesn't really fit.  Heck, once you get that confession on paper DA's stop looking for evidence, because it's a lock.  Sure you take more evidence if it's easy, but you don't go out of the way to get it via paying money.

There is no book deal to be made for the guy because he was such a small part.  There is literally no story for him to tell.  (I was called to do this then I was in the room.)

He doesn't even have TV movie potential.

As for the guys that go from cable show to cable show.  They do that for the publicity.   You get a small fee for showing up, and get a gift basket in studio.  Even with lots of shows, it'd be less then the 2,000 he was offered.  

And just how the hell do you know he didn't fork over the money to the guy? 

And I doubt a vocal admission followed immediately by a retraction and claim of confusing the question would be considered a slam dunk.  A signed confession would be pretty damning, even if later retracted; however that is totally not the case here. 

And there would be more of a story for a book if he also uncovered the documents, more so in an exciting way like bribing some guy involved in the coverup, but this part of the discussion is getting a little silly. 

P.S.  What $2000 are you talking about?  I think you're confused here. 

You said he was offered 2,000 dollar from some white guy who was deported right?  He'd stand to make at most that.

How do we know he didn't fork over the money?  If he did we would of heard about it.  Would be fairly easy to tell if he had the money.