Posted on 06/19/2008 10:22:35 PM PDT by pissant
Larry Sinclair strikes again!
The Main Stream Media seem to have taken the approach that the name Larry Sinclair does not exist. There has been almost no mention of the press conference held yesterday where Larry pulled out his somewhat doubtful but none the less humorous tale of driving around in the back of a limo, while he and Barak Obama engaged in some less than heterosexual activities, and did a couple of lines of Cocaine. Oh, and the cocaine was obtained by Obama. This entire story has the credibility of some of the claims made by late night infomercials!
Larry’s press conference yesterday ended somewhat ignominiously, with him being cuffed and led away by the Feds. His lawyer, resplendent in Kilt (he told the audience it was to do with his anatomical design, trousers were too constricting) was unable to assist, as his law license is currently suspended.
The interesting aspect in this circus was the involvement of Whitehouse.com, they used to be a porn site, but I guess they have discovered that there is more money in politics that naked flesh.
Whitehouse.com were the folks that persuaded Larry Sinclair to take a polygraph test, a test that he apparently failed. Yesterday Whitehouse.com had booked time right after Larry’s press conference, for one of their own.
During the press conference, Whitehouse.com will release the results of the polygraph examinations, the reports of the experts, and a video of Mr. Sinclair taken while the examinations were being administered.
This was the lead article on their site for several days. But this morning there was no sign of it. The good news is that Whitehouse.com is about as popular as a dose of herpes, and not refreshed by the search engines very often, so Google still had the original version of the page cached.
Screen grabs available here and here.
I wonder what went wrong? Cold feet?
I was not there, but a press friend had this to say about whitehouse.com
Whitehouse handed out talking points but from the one account I have….Parisi’s equipment broke and then he walked out without answering any questions….which wasn’t noticeable, since almost no one showed up….
So, is whitehouse.com the real thing, or are they just as sleazy as the previous porn owners? It seems to me that while they may not have had huge credibility before, they now have zero! If you advertise a story, you should go through with it. In the print world, you have to live by what you print. In the internet world, you can always delete it. But Whitewash.com didn’t take into account the fact that the traces are left. There is always a copy if you look hard enough. A quick ‘reality scan’ of whitehouse.com’ reveals that they do not have a huge amount of credibility. The Alexa rating puts them somewhere between the storm drain and the sewer, and Technorati barely registers their existence.
Simon Barrett
And, uh, Simon, the owner of whitehouse.com is the same owner who ran the joint when it was the top spam porn site.
And Simon, you might wnat to mention they scrubbed all mention of their presser from their website, after having it trumpeted mightily the day before it occurred.
Go figger.
Make that Larry Sinclair, not LArry Sincair. oops
I think it’s high time for somebody to step up, hook the Larrymeister up to a genuine polygraph, and put the whole thing on live pay-per-view.
And someone (Chicago PD) needs to get busy and confirm/deny larry got calls from Donald Young.
Parsleazy should just rename it Whitewhore.com and end it all right now....LOL!
Well, he may be going back to porn, after his less than stellar performance in trying to discredit Larry Sinclair.
Pornotics - The unsuccessful attempt at marrying porn and politics :o
Frankly, in most cases these days, the porn is more honorable.
True. At least they are honest about wanting to screw people..... ;)
ANd funding it is voluntary
Sorry, but I guess I'll never be mature enough to shrug off a candidate for President who's a homosexual crack smoker like B. Hussein Obama.
FRegards,
LH
Your immaturity is manifest in your believing the word of a man with no evidence who was arrested on an outstanding warrant upon the close of his own press conference and who has a retained a lawyer whose license is suspended and who also wears a kilt because (says he) his penis is too big for him to be comfortable wearing pants.
Lie detectors are anything but definitive in determining the truth and can be fairly easily defeated by anyone able to exercise some physiological restraints by using a sort of “mind over matter approach” This is why they are not permitted as evidence in any courts of law here.
That said, Sinclair has provided telephone numbers and the name of the limo driver as evidence of his contacts with Hussein. If this info is checked out and the number he gives is indeed that of Hussein then that would need to be addressed by Hussein himself.
No evidence?
What about the phone numbers supplied by Sinclair? He says they are or were Hussein’s, at least one of them anyway. What about the name of the limo driver he offered as further evidence? You don’t believe these should even be checked out?
The fact that Obama NONCHALANTLY said he used coke...makes me think this isn’t the worst thing he’s done. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR DOING COKE.
You’ll get no argument from me.
It always amazes me that the Lame Stream media will give credence to things like the National Guard documents if it involves President Bush. Dumbocrates could get caught with with both a dead girl scout and a live boy scout and be fine. Nothing to see here folks, move along
“I think it’s high time for somebody to step up, hook the Larrymeister up to a genuine polygraph, and put the whole thing on live pay-per-view.”
With every bit of 2 viewers, you and pissant. Every body else seems to have the good sense to know this guy is a freakin’ kook who is making crap up out of thin air. I cannot imagine a less credible person.
“Ignoring it is irresponsible.”
That post was probably the best reasoning I’ve read. However, Clinton was elected regardless of Paula Jones and she was far more credible than Sinclair.
As for the hooker, there were records that substantiated her claims.
As far as the part I quoted, I disagree. Even if these phone numbers check out, then what? What does that prove? A known con man got hold of some phone numbers. Wow, bet he’s never done that before.
What is irresponsible is hedging your bets on a well known con man. It’s like letting your kids stay at Michael Jackson’s house. That leap of faith is beyond irresponsible.
Did you donate?
(Fill in your least-favorite expletive) no. Only a fool would leave a penny dropped on the sidewalk for Sinclair to pick up.
That's probably what this is all about, anyway -- a convicted criminal that's currently under arrest trying to fleece people desperate enough to defeat Obama they will believe a story that can't possibly be proved.
And you think you can start a third party! The country will never be in such dire straits it would ever turn to people dumb enough to buy what Sinclair's selling.
Who is buying it? I want it publicized and investigated properly. You think I gave him $? Not a chance. But I’m doing my part by keeping in the public eye.
Not sure which is more entertaining. The Sinclair-Obama saga or the reactions of people like you.
Hey, Galileo: Rational people don't call allegations "evidence." Once allegations are proved, they become "facts," and then you can move forward with trying to gain support for your story.
For years, an Idaho newspaper refused to print allegations that Sen. Larry Craig was in the habit of seeking anonymous sexual encounters with men. Craig vehemently denied they were true, and there was NO evidence independent of anecdotes from a few admitted male whores that Craig was 100% hetero. What changed things? When he actually got ARRESTED by an undercover cop in a Minneapolis airport restroom known as a cruising hot spot. There was no reason to withhold the story at that point, since Craig was actually caught doing what he had denied doing for a long time.
There is NO reason anyone with half a brain should believe Sinclair's story. He's a crook, he's flunked a polygraph, he's got no eyewitnesses who are willing to come forward, he's got no surveillance footage. Whoever you vote for next, I don't think you would appreciate it if a MSM reporter promoted a story from a coke-snorting swindler man-whore and said, "He has more credibility than your candidate."
Veterans in the battle to impeach Clinton know: You can't believe every crackpot just because your hatred is so intense, you WANT to assume the worst. Those who don't learn the past are condemned to repeat it.
No you don't. You just want it publicized.
You think I gave him $? Not a chance. But I’m doing my part by keeping in the public eye.
Not sure which is more entertaining. The Sinclair-Obama saga or the reactions of people like you.
"People like [me]"? I guess by that you mean, "People who don't want Free Republic to become a repository of reckless, poorly-researched, half-baked, brain-dead conspiracy theories like Democratic Underground."
The MSM does not need to promote the story. They need to do the same thing they do for all of allegations against Bush/Cheney/GOP. Investigate.
What makes you think the MSM hasn't done so, and found nothing?
As I outlined in my post to lexusppd, there is no reason for this to go any further than the baseless allegations against Larry Craig did until Craig, through his own activity, lent them credence.
We would be in blissful ignorance of the existence of Larry Sinclair if there was no YouTube. Until he brings more, that's where he should stay, alongside Diet Coke & Mentos geysers, street brawls, and fat chicks wiggling their flabby butts at webcams.
No, the cat is already out of the bag on this one. Everyone in the media knows about the story. He has given some info that is relatively easy to corroborate. The last thing this country needs is Obama in the oval office. And any info that has the potential to derail him should be checked out. If not for a gay whore coming forward, Ted Haggard would still be fleecing his flock. If not for Roger Stone tipping off the authorities about whorehouses, Spitzer would still be in Albany. If not for some intern kid coming forward with tales of being hit upon, Mark Foley would be in the Senate.
Go Larry Go.
Okay, you believe Obama, and I’ll believe Larry.
Makes us about even.
Ahh....
But remember....
We aren’t talking about REPUBLICAN pols or preachers, here. We are dealing with the OBAMAMESSIAH, the Holy Annointed one of the Democrat Party.
He can DO NO WRONG in the media’s eyes that is worth reporting, no matter how many wrongs he does/has done/ will do..
And anyone THAT DARES to speak ill of the Messiah will be attacked mercilessly by that same media.
Maybe he's trying out for an Obama appointment.
“(Chicago PD) needs to get busy and confirm/deny larry got calls from Donald Young.”
Chicago PD has more important things to do, like fleecing drug dealers for cash, and shuffling the paperwork of the HUNDREDS, perhaps THOUSANDS of ghost employees on the payroll.
“Okay, you believe Obama, and I’ll believe Larry.”
I’ve not heard Obama say anything about it sits not a case of who I believe. This isn’t even about Obama. It’s about having common sense enough to be able to distinguish a lie from the truth and an honest man from a liar.
I know there is nothing that will convince you Sinclair is lying. You want what he said to be true so badly you’ll willingly suspend disbelief, common sense and reason to reside in your own fantasy, much like the “truther” movement.
You say that like it's a bad thing. ;)
Why do I suspect there is nothing that will convince you he's telling the truth?
We don't know at this point, who is lying and who isn't. But I can listen to that oily scumbag Obama for one minute and any sick thing anybody says about him seems instantly believable.
“Why do I suspect there is nothing that will convince you he’s telling the truth?”
Sure there is, evidence. He’s got none.
Obama lies his butt off, too. He is not to be trusted. My very, VERY strong suspicion that Sinclair is lying through his teeth has nothing to do with Obama’s level of trustworthiness.
Sinclair produced phone numbers he claimed were Husseins, he provided the name of the limo driver as well.
I don’t recall any investigations into this. If you do please link me to the conclusions of the investigations.
Ok smithturd, if you knew the difference between an allegation and evidence perhaps listening to you might make sense.
Pay attention if you are able.
An allegation is "..A statement by a party describing what that party's position is and what that party intends to prove. ..."
Now then, next we have that which will be used in an attempt to PROVE the allegation. Look below (that's down) and read what it says. take your time, absorb, learn.
"Evidence includes anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion (allegation?)."
Now then, the dope smoking and drug buys as well as the homosexual acts are the allegations. The phone numbers and name of the limo driver is the evidence which he has presented in order to PROVE the allegations or assertions.
Got it now?
The phone numbers aren't part of the lawsuit against Obama/Dean/Axelrod; Sinclair is suggesting that he has been slandered and that Obama forces have conducted "illegal" investigations into him after his YouTube video and have "violate[d Sinclair's] right of free speech," which, of course, is total compost. There is NO compelling reason for anyone besides Sinclair to confirm that these phone numbers were that of Obama or whoever he's suggesting they are.
It's getting tiresome having to rehash the ways in which I have already obliterated Sinclair's incomprehensible lawsuit and his bottom-of-the-barrel lawyer, who is a deadbeat dad, is prohibited from practicing in Maryland, was just suspended and can't practice law in the District of Columbia, may eventually be disbarred after being declared a "vexacious litigant" in Florida, and who once tried to sue the Supreme Court of the United States for "treason."
Instead of the coverage of the Sinclair fiasco at the National Press Club provided by The Politico, Pissant posted this sympathetic version from a hoozat blogger. A better account is offered by Australia's Sydney Morning Herald:
On Wednesday Sinclair booked a room at the National Press Club to produce the evidence and try to capture the national spotlight for his claims. But he spent much of the time answering questions about himself. He has what is called a colourful background: a 27-year criminal career which includes convictions for fraud, forging cheques, and stealing credit card numbers.Sinclair was accompanied by his kilt-clad lawyer, Montgomery Blair Sibley. Sibley has had his own problems: a Florida court struck him off for vexatious litigation, most of it directed against his former wife.
(snip)
As for the evidence, it was scant. Sinclair named the limousine driver, but wasn't sure where he was. The limousine company appears to have folded. Phone records are being sought from Sinclair's provider, but the search has been hampered by the fact that he changed his number four times in two months in late 2007.
Those wanting to talk to Sinclair knew where to find him on Wednesday, however. At the end of the news conference two police officers arrived and arrested him on an outstanding warrant.
This whole situation has been called a "circus." That's too charitable. It's more like a roadside petting zoo run by carnies with only jackasses and rabid weasels. And everyone who doesn't call it what it is sullies themselves by treating it with undue respect.
Your wasting your breath. I frankly don’t care about your take on the case. If it bothers you or is not interesting, do what a normal human would do, ignore it.
Or taking them to Trinity United Church of Christ.
Not a chance. This crapola isn't going to go unchallenged on any website I am a part of.
And a normal human wouldn't publicize it as if it deserves more than one thought.
Here is where I am on this. Larry Sinclair has made allegations. Homosexual contact with the Mulatto. Doing drugs with the Mulatto.. He offers up, as proof, phone numbers and names. Now if this came after the law suit was initiated then fine, but it is now public knowledge. If he failed to include this in the lawsuit, although I am not sure why he would do so before the actual trial if there is one. In any case NOW we have this info and until such time as it is thoroughly examined he gets the benefit of the doubt on it. It is ridiculous tom say because he has a criminal background, something he has freely admitted to, that anything he says is a lie. Unless of course you are an obamamaniac or a McCain hater.
---------------------------------------------------------
Let's deconstruct this.
First, your racist slip is showing by describing obama as "The Mulatto". How is his mixed race relevant to this in any way? It is clear that you use the term in an attempt to belittle him.
Second, phone numbers and names are proof of nothing. Third party corroboration from an eyewitness is proof. Phone records tying those numbers to the parties involved is evidence but still short of proof. Your boy Sinclair has not provided either after all these months.
Third, anybody with LE, journalism or legal practice experience (as well as most thinking adults) realize that any career criminal, especially one whose specialty has been fraud, does not, after three decades of criminal life, deserve the benefit of the doubt on anything. Barnum said a century ago that there is a sucker born every minute. The Sinclair's of the world count on that still being true. You and others here give him reason to believe that it is.
Fourth, the canard that holds calling Sinclair the fraud that he has always been is proof that one supports obama or hates McCain is just damned stupid.
“Or taking them to Trinity United Church of Christ.”
Heh. Touche`. ;)
Your liberalism is showing because you perceive calling a man exactly what he is racist. Like a good little lefty you use ANY excuse to play the race card. See, I'm not a racist because I KNOW I would vote for a black man if he were a Republican. On the other hand I wouldn't vote for a Democrat no matter what color he is. Now lefty's as I strongly, STRONGLY suspect you are would vote for a Democrat simply BECAUSE he is black. This is exactly what happened in MA when they elected a black governor and were "oh so proud of themselves". The laughs on them since he is a total disaster. Inept, blundering and clueless, he currently enjoys approval ratings in the low 30's.
Second, phone numbers and names are proof of nothing. Third party corroboration from an eyewitness is proof. Phone records tying those numbers to the parties involved is evidence but still short of proof. Your boy Sinclair has not provided either after all these months.
He has offered the evidence up (something you DENIED he even had a few posts ago). It is up to the liberal media to get to work, something we both know they will not do. I will know I am correct if we here no more about these phone numbers and the limo driver. It will mean Sinclair was right and the numbers and the driver are real. If they prove to be phony they will be headline news.
Third, anybody with LE, journalism or legal practice experience (as well as most thinking adults) realize that any career criminal, especially one whose specialty has been fraud, does not, after three decades of criminal life, deserve the benefit of the doubt on anything. Barnum said a century ago that there is a sucker born every minute. The Sinclair's of the world count on that still being true. You and others here give him reason to believe that it is.
So then, he has a criminal record and therefore nothing he says is believable? The illogic of your statement is simply stunning.
Fourth, the canard that holds calling Sinclair the fraud that he has always been is proof that one supports obama or hates McCain is just damned stupid.
You do not KNOW he is a fraud, rather you HOPE he is a fraud because I now believe you are a messiah flake. I never said I believed him totally. What I said is there isn't any quid pro quo and he was upfront about his past and why he was coming forward. He said simply (paraphrase) "Here is what I know, I offer it to you, do with it what you will" The fact you so casually dismiss his allegations and supporting evidence confirms my belief as to your ideology.
OK. Stick around. There are a handful of Obama trolls (yes, I know you are not one of them) that you can tag team with to argue that Sinclair should be ignored.
It’s already more entertaining than anything on TV, and you guys just add to the fun.
I didn’t realize that you are such a child...have a nice life.
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.