Posted on 02/24/2008 3:56:19 PM PST by hotdog777
The man who recently made allegations that Senator Barack Obama met him back in 1999 for sex n drugs in the back of limo has failed not one, but two polygraphs.
The site, Whitehouse.com, had offered Sinclair the sum of $10,000 to take a polygraph plus another check for $100,000 if he passed. To prove they were not bi-partisan the site also offered the woman at the center of the McCain lobbyist mini-scandal, Vicki Iseman, the same offer.
Whitehouse.com used the services of highly respected polygraph expert, Dr. Ed Gelb. Sinclair passed a drug test before taking the tests, both administered on Friday. On the first test, questions were administered about Sinclair’s claims that he and Obama had sex. The second test focused on Sinclair’s claims that he and Obama did drugs. Dr.Gelb found “deception was indicated” in both tests. Absent any other developments this is the end of the road for Larry Sinclair.
[video]
As DBKP reported in its story yesterday, the supermarket tabloid, The Globe, had found additional information on Sinclair’s background. According the Globe, the 46-year-old ex-con Sinclair had spent time in prison for credit card fraud, had admitted being a dope smuggler and a “coyote”, a person who smuggles people into the country, for a price. What were the possible motives for Larry Sinclair?
Read rest of the story:
Larry Sinclair: Obama Accuser Fails Polygraphs
Hey ten thousand bucks is ten thousand bucks...
Gee, I am shocked.
So what was this guy’s motive? Who makes such accusations against himself, let alone Obama?
We'd be best to steer away from this creep. Aside from the fact that his story is failing to pan out, this kind of "bad news" wouldn't sink Obama at all. As I've said before, the Democrats did not care in 1992 that Bill Clinton was fooling around. They won't care if Obama had done it either.
Yes, the money was the motive for the polygraph I suppose. But what was the motive to make the accusation in the first place? Who was behind it, or did this genius come up with this all by himself?
A polygraph is totally inaccurate. Larry could be telling a lie and the polygraph says he is telling the truth, or Larry could be telling the truth and and the polygraph says he is telling a lie.
They are worthless. What has to happen next is an investigation and questions addressed to Senator Obama.
The seriousness of the allegations trumps the questionability of Mr. Sinclair. It is only proper that Mr. Sinclair, the accuser, get as much attention to his complaint as those that have accused President Bush of have over the last several years.
Again, this polygraph neither PROVES nor DISPROVES anything as the left has been reminding us for a week now, just in case he passed it.......
I agree.
I would like to know his motive for making this accusation, however.
Somehow, it doesn’t fit w/ who he is.
Polygraphs don’t work.
On the other hand, I figured he was a liar all along.
You sound like a Democrat. Specifically, Tom Foley.
This is brilliant—Obama has this creep make a rediculious claim and be found to be a lier. Now any with simular claims will not be believed! Even Slick Willie never did this. Give Obama points for brains. I bet there is a trunk full of dark things in Obama’s past.
I agree.
And thus proving the wisdom of FR in not letting to many of these stories run here.
It looked and smelled like a tar baby from the beginning.
So a candidate has to address every nutball accusation with not a shred of evidence behind it?
Not fake but accurate? I wonder how much the Clinton campaign paid this guy.
If Obama is out doing this sort of thing there will be others. Sinclair failed his own test. I would still like to know why he did this. Was he just looking for attention? Was he part of a scheme to bring down Obama? What?
A polygraph is totally inaccurate. Larry could be telling a lie and the polygraph says he is telling the truth, or Larry could be telling the truth and and the polygraph says he is telling a lie.
They are worthless. What has to happen next is an investigation and questions addressed to Senator Obama.
The seriousness of the allegations trumps the questionability of Mr. Sinclair. It is only proper that Mr. Sinclair, the accuser, get as much attention to his complaint as those that have accused President Bush of have over the last several years.
Again, this polygraph neither PROVES nor DISPROVES anything as the left has been reminding us for a week now, just in case he passed it.......
I agree. Polygraphs are absolute junk
Any sociopath can beat them.
However, I think Sinclair’s background probably makes his Obama story a fraud...espeicllay if he was a convicted con man
I’m pretty sure Hillary was gonna try it herself. Just couldn’t find anybody - male or female - will to say they’d had sex with her.
Unfortunately yes, assuming you realize your question was too exaggerated. The penalty for false accusations should be stiff. But the importance of knowing the truth cannot be overstated when you are talking about the person who will be the President of the United States for 4 years at least. That's a lot of power to hand someone without thoroughly investigating serious allegations.
Over on the other end of Obama's speechwriter, campaign advisor Axelrod we find Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts. He's Obama's good buddy you know, and sometimes he delivers Axelrod's speeches first, and sometimes second, but whatever, he and Obama deliver the same speeches.
Anyway Deval's got a top level staffer who was picked up at the end of December for homosexual rape on a 15 year old boy.
Sex at both ends ~ could be?
I wish someone would offer Huma the same deal
He was hired by Osama to make the false claims, be branded a liar. This non truth will be offered as proof Osama is not a doper.
All subsequent efforts to expose Osama's character will reference this polygraph as if Hussein has passed it.
Yet, Hussein Osama is an admitted doper.
yitbos
</S> oops
This should include DNA tests of Senator Obama's underwear.
Obama is a damned socialist. That’s scandalous enough for me.
It is news that it happened, whether true or false.
Could be, except I would think Obama's media darlings would have been more willing to report the story if that were the case. That theory assumes Obama wanted the story to get play time.
You must be tom dasshole's long lost brother. That is stooping lower than the demorats.
I honestly always thought that this was a clinton hit job, but one poorly done.
Obama has dirt, Hillary has slung plenty of it at him, but he's been teflon to her.
Whoops.
Polygraphs most certainly do work.
They are a stable of investigations and are considered by those who do this for a living as very reliable.
Whenever people don’t like the outcome of a polygraph they just, boom, state as if all the knowledge in the world were in their considerable brains....”Polygraphs don’t work.”
They’re not admissible in court and perhaps they shouldn’t be.
But they work quite reliably most of the time.
I base my assertion on the fact that the way vast majority of law enforcement organizations in this country use polygraphs as does the FBI.
On what basis is your assertion that....boom...they don’t work?
More wasted Clinton campaign cash.
I heard more about this guy from Clinton supporters then anywhere else.
Obama basically ignored this guy, I always thought he was a clinton plant, but no one really cared.
If he had been paid by the Obama campaign, they would have acknowledged him by both claiming he is lying and working for a rival campaign, and then they would have been trumping this lie detector as de facto evidence that the guy is a liar.
Instead they acted like didn't exist.
No surprise. This was moonbat stuff from the go.
Some Freeper posers are disappointed.
So Sinclair blew the polygraph?
Psychics also consider what they purport to do as "very reliable".
I base my assertion on the fact that the way vast majority of law enforcement organizations in this country use polygraphs as does the FBI.
LE and FBI also use crackhead lowlife as "reliable informants"
This is the type of scum that attack Obama with crap about his being a muslim or took the oath of office on a koran or won.t pledge to the flag we all love. Lets argue issues like NAFTA and the loss of AMERICA to CHINA and Mexico but lets get off this crap that Sinclair was vomiting.
Yeah, it is weird. Because when he started this in September, Obama wasn’t a phenomenon. It is strange. I am interested in seeing what the points of deception were on the two exams.
I agree, its time to end the tabloid crap and talk about issues.
“We’d be best to steer away from this creep. Aside from the fact that his story is failing to pan out, this kind of “bad news” wouldn’t sink Obama at all. As I’ve said before, the Democrats did not care in 1992 that Bill Clinton was fooling around. They won’t care if Obama had done it either.”
True that...and if it was true that it was with a man it would be glorified into he’s open to all the contingents of the party...
OK, my turn!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.