Skip to comments.Why Larry Sinclair May be Telling the Truth
Posted on 09/08/2008 6:41:50 PM PDT by pissant
For those who are or claim to be unfamiliar with the Larry Sinclair story, let me summarize it as briefly as possible.
Larry Sinclair, who now lives in Duluth, Minnesota, claims to have spent parts of the evenings of Nov. 6 and Nov. 7, 1999 with Senator Obama in Chicago. At least as far back as 1986 Sinclair has been in trouble with the law, arrested for a variety of things (fraud seemingly at the top of the list), and had been up to that time in and out of prison. He is an openly gay man, and he seems to have done more of his share of drinking and drugs while cruising for casual hookups with gay or on the prowl heterosexual or bisexual men on a routine basis. He even lived in Mexico for awhile and has legally changed his name several times, presumably to alleviate the shame that would be directed towards his family for his loathesome actions.
Anyway, so here's this on the make Larry Sinclair character, living in Mexico in 2004, and he is watching television and sees Senator Barack Obama giving a speech at the Democratic National Convention. Sinclair recognizes Obama. Why? Because on one of those random cruises or hustles that Sinclair was engaged in beginning on Nov. 3, 1999, while in Chicago to attend a graduation of a relative from (I believe) naval boot camp, Sinclair ran into Obama. (To clarify: Sinclair arrived in Chicago on Nov. 3. The activities with Obama did not begin until the sixth.) At least this is the story Sinclair tells. Here's a guy that is always on the make, and presumably has come into some cash from recent successful drug sales. He is in the Chicago area, and he wants to have a good time. He hires a limo driver working for a company called Five Star limousine service, and he directs the driver to take him to hot spots for action. The driver takes Sinclair around town, eventually dropping him off at or close to a gay bar. Knowing that Sinclair is hot for action, the limo driver contacts someone. That someone is Senator Barack Obama (but not a senator at the time of course). Once introduced--and Obama used his actual name according to Sinclair--Obama and Sinclair engaged in little more than routine small talk. All Sinclair remembers about Obama was that he was in local "public service," and Sinclair pursued it no further.
Sinclair asked Obama if he could get him drugs, and he said yes. Obama made a phone call on his cell phone, and the limo driver took them to an unspecified location, presumably so that Obama could pick up the drugs. Sinclair gave Obama $200. Obama exited the vehicle, was gone for a short while, and then returned. Obama had acquired cocaine for Sinclair, of which he snorted a few lines in the limo, while Obama pulled a pipe out of his pocket and smoked crack cocaine. While the drug activity was going on Sinclair gave Obama oral sex. This all happened on the night of Nov. 6.
After finishing the limo driver took Sinclair back to his hotel and dropped him off. The next day or evening--the time is unclear according to Sinclair's story--Obama unexpectedly showed up at Sinclair's hotel room. Whether or not they did drugs together again I am not sure. But Sinclair does claim that he once again gave Obama oral sex.
Again, this appears to be a random meeting between Sinclair and Obama covering two days, Nov. 6 and 7, 1999, in Chicago, Illinois. It was never anything special or memorable for Sinclair. These sort of "one night stands" or "quickies" were simply a way of life for Sinclair. Men come out of the shadows on the streets or in the clubs or restrooms, they mingle briefly and do their thing, and then they retreat back into the shadows, usually never to be seen by each other again. And even after Sinclair saw Obama on TV five years later, although he recognized him from Chicago, the ethics of street hustling--of the "down low" culture in which Obama was presumably partaking--was that you kiss but don't tell. There is honor even among thieves apparently. Sinclair kept it to himself.
But something changed in 2007. Obama had now become a major player on the national political stage, and Sinclair had become aware of Obama's claim--from his two autobiographies as well as media sources--that he had experimented with drugs as a youth but that the drug use had ended in college. But Sinclair knew differently. After all, he had taken cocaine with Obama in Illinois in 1999, well after Obama's college days. Obama was passing himself off as a sort of Messiah, as a messenger of a new transparency and transcendency regarding politics. Obama talked a good game but was not practicing what he was preaching. He was dirty, and this sort of dirt is even worse because of the hypocrisy. Sinclair set out to set the record straight.
In the latter half of 2007 Sinclair began contacting the Obama campaign to ask them to publicly correct Senator Obama's claim concerning his drug use. He was hopeful that Obama would acknowledge that it was later than what was claimed in his Audacity of Hope. At this time Sinclair made no mention of the gay sex. There were never any acknowledgments from the Obama campaign one way or the other concerning Sinclair's communications with them. At some point, however, Sinclair began receiving communications--calls to his cell phone and text messages--from someone calling himself "Mr. Young." Sinclair had left several phone numbers with the Obama campaign in the event that they saw fit to respond.
At first Mr. Young struck Sinclair as someone making follow up calls from the campaign. But at some point Mr. Young asked if Sinclair had said anything about the sexual encounters with Obama. This raised flags for Sinclair, as the content of his contacts with the Obama campaign made no mention of any sexual activity between him and Obama. Something was up. In fact, it was later discovered by Sinclair that this Mr. Young was not really with the campaign at all. And further, Young made it known to Sinclair that he was gay as well, and that he had been intimate with Senator Obama. The last communication Sinclair received amounted to Young telling him that Senator Obama would make no public statement or correction concerning Sinclair and the issue of his drug use. Young went on to inform Sinclair that he (Young) was being used merely to milk Sinclair for information, especially regarding who else he may have told about the sexual encounters with Obama.
On December 24, 2007, Donald Young was murdered execution style, his body found in his apartment by his roommate. Sinclair believes there may have been a connection between Obama, perhaps even Reverend Wright, and the murdered Donald Young. Sinclair provided a sworn statement to the Chicago Police regarding his phone conversations with Young. Since the murder investigation is still very much open and unsolved, it made good sense for Sinclair to come forward to provide them with whatever information he had about the case. As of this writing, there has been no further word from the Chicago Police on how that investigation is going.
Frustrated by the stonewalling, Sinclair made a now infamous YouTube video where he laid out the story of his two night encounter with Obama, including the gay sex and cocaine use. Some exact dates are not readily available to me, but I believe this first YouTube posting was made in February, 2008. A bit later an organization known as whitehouse.com, headed by Don Parisi, offered Sinclair $10,000 to take a polygraph and $100,000 if he passed it on the claims regarding Obama. Whether Sinclair knew it or not, whitehouse.com was a former porn site that had only recently gotten into political commentary, the original aims of which were to attack President Bill Clinton and his wife. It was in essence a smear site against the Clintons.
After taking the polygraph and collecting his $10,000, Sinclair was informed that the "expert" hired to administer and interpret the polygraph, a person by the name of Ed Gelb, found that Sinclair was "deceptive" on the questions of the drug use and sex with Obama. Problem is, Gelb had a phony Ph.D., plus the transparency that was assured regarding making the computer readout of the results available to independent experts for their own verification never occurred. Parisi simply accepted the word of Gelb without a chance to verify his interpretation, violating the spirit of the agreement. In short, Sinclair had been duped. Sinclair even received a tip a short time later that the polygraph examiner was paid off by someone in the Obama campaign to the tune of $750,000.
Clearly Sinclair was a fool not to have checked out the veracity of Parisi, whitehouse.com, and Gelb. He walked straight into a trap, and this one part of the story--the so-called failed lie detector test--has dominated whatever coverage of the story has occurred on the blogs and Internet. There has been absolutely no coverage of this story in the mainstream media save for an indirect reference to Sinclair by Keith Olbermann on his Countdown show, a few days before Sinclair held a press conference at the National Press Club.
Lots of things have happened to Sinclair since that press conference in June, including his arrest shortly after completing the press conference by DC police on a "fugitive warrant" from the state of Delaware. This came down from a sealed grand jury indictment orchestrated by the attorney general of Delaware, one Beau Biden. Yes, the son of Obama VP pick Joe Biden. In late August all criminal charges against Sinclair were dropped, charges that Sinclair contends he knew all along were bogus. If there were any clearer cases of abuse of power by an attorney general, using his office for political purposes against a private citizen, I can't think of a more egregious recent example.
It is now time to reflect on the pros and cons of this entire Sinclair saga. I will attempt to point out weaknesses or holes in Sinclair's story, but I will also work through Sinclair's allegations as logically and even-handedly as possible. One big plus Sinclair has going for him is consistency. As far as I can tell there has never been any wavering by Sinclair about any points of the story, even minute details. Where he doesn't have perfect recollection of events, he has informed his listeners, and these imperfections and discontinuities have always been the same over all these months. Also, Sinclair has been extremely consistent in all of his interviews. When he talks about events they are told in a seamless fashion without much hemming and hawing. Sinclair never sounds like he's simply "making stuff up." In short, he sounds convincing.
But first to troubling aspects of Sinclair's story. I will also throw in some oppositional points that others have raised, many of which are easily shot down. But a few unanswered or implausible aspects of the story still remain.
1. First, why is it that after Sinclair recognized Obama in 2004 making his speech at the DNC, why didn't Sinclair report it more widely? Some persons are troubled that Sinclair waited until 2007 to claim he had intimate moments with Obama way back in 1999. But I do not believe this is a damning accusation. Remember, we talked about the ethics of silence of the down-low, cruising culture of quickies between men in various under-the-radar settings. It seems to me perfectly believable that Sinclair, in Mexico at the time and just happening to see Obama on TV in 2004, would have decided to say nothing about the 1999 incident at the time.
2. Where is the limo driver? Sinclair identified the limo driver at his press conference, Jagir Multani. Where is Multani? Also, Sinclair claims that Multani knew Obama at least casually, because he was the one who introduced him to Obama. Well, can anyone check to see if there are any records at all of contact between Obama and Multani, or at the very least, a working relationship between Obama and Five Star limo service? From what I understand, a number of news organizations who know about this story--let me clarify that, EVERYONE knows about this story and they are sitting on it--will not come forward with the story until the driver comes forward. No Multani, no story. Simple as that. With no third-party cooberation, so these folks say, Sinclair is dead in the water.
3. Why can't Sinclair remember the time of day of Obama's visit to his hotel room, or if he does remember, why is he reluctant to say so? Why does this hole exist in the story?
4. Why doesn't Sinclair have the records of text messages or cell phone numbers of his communications with Donald Young? Why has he had to go to all the trouble of having the Chicago Police subpoena his cell phone provider (Nextel I believe) for the cell phone records?
5. Some claim that when Sinclair did his first YouTube video in February, there would have been time enough for him to have found out about the murder of Donald Young. So why did Sinclair not mention the Donald Young murder in that first video? Some see Sinclair as merely an opportunist, who merely threw in the Donald Young story simply to make it juicier for purposes of hurting Obama even more. Again, this is not a strong charge. Sinclair claims all he got from Young the several time he contacted him was his introduction as "Mr. Young." Also, although tragic, the story of the death of Donald Young was not widely publicized outside of Chicago. It is perfectly believable that the news of Donald Young's death had not made it to Larry Sinclair in Minnesota by the time of his first YouTube video in February. Putting two plus together, that is, identifying the murdered Donald Young as his Mr. Young, would have taken time, at least the amount of time it took Sinclair to actually start reporting on the Donald Young murder himself months later.
6. A la Gennifer Flowers or Paula Jones regarding allegations against President Clinton, Sinclair claims that he can identify intimate details of Obama's private parts. Well, why not report on this? Why is Sinclair still sitting on this information? The only thing that he has said is that Obama has a "white man's" penis, obviously referring to its size or lack thereof.
Now I would like to point out some things that, from my perspective, lend credence to the story. The critics of Larry Sinclair always take one particular stand and never pursue the story further. In other words, there is never any attempts to critically analyze the elements of the story, to work through them as logically as possible. The standard position of the Sinclair critic is simple: Sinclair is a liar and making the whole thing up. Okay, let's begin with this assumption, that Sinclair has fabricated a gigantic lie merely to hurt Senator Obama, and see where it leads us. Let us work logically from this starting assumption, and see if where we end up is plausible.
1. If Sinclair were making up this story, why would he set the events in 1999? If his aim was to hurt Senator Obama with salacious allegations of drugs and sex, wouldn't it have been far more effective to place the events closer in time to the present? Why 1999, which now is nine years in the past? The purposeful placing of these events in 1999 makes absolutely no sense.
2. If Sinclair were simply making this up, why would he extend the events over two days? It is difficult enough to anticipate or peg the whereabouts of someone if these events are isolated to one day. But if you extend the story to cover two days you are doubling your risk that you will be exposed as a fraud, because each day that is added makes it harder and harder to be certain that the person is actually physically present at the place you claim the events occurred. Sinclair could not have known beforehand where Obama was on Nov. 6 and Nov. 7, 1999, and in fact Obama has never released any official records of his whereabouts on those days. As it turns out, it is very likely Obama was in the area during this time, because recently it was discovered that Obama attended a conference at Northwestern University in Chicago on Nov. 8, only a day after the alleged incident of the seventh took place. It is a highly improbable scenario that Sinclair would have studied the records of Obama's whereabouts and fabricated an elaborate story to jibe with knowledge of his presence in Chicago during that time. It just makes no sense.
3. If Sinclair is simply making the story up to hurt Obama, why would he not go for the jugular and make the sex part even more salacious? On two separate occasions Sinclair reports that he only gave oral sex to Obama. A far more hurtful and juicier story would have been easy to fabricate, namely, saying that Obama not only received but also gave oral sex. The visit to the hotel room would have been a perfect opportunity for Sinclair to throw this in. But he didn't. The story was always and only about Obama receiving oral sex. Again, seen from the angle of a guy simply making stuff up to hurt Obama, well, it just doesn't add up.
Absent a legitimate investigation of these allegations, the Sinclair story sits in limbo. It is very easy to write off Sinclair as a wacko who made up a silly story about Obama for whatever reasons and leave it at that. Some have asked, if Obama knows these Sinclair allegations to be untrue, why hasn't he sued him? Or at the very least, why has he not listed the allegations on his famous anti-smear site? Another thing worth nothing is this. Many claim Obama does not respond because persons in public life get all sorts of bizarre accusations thrown at them, and there is no way to adequately respond to all of them. Fair enough. But think for a moment. It is actually not as easy as people say it is to fabricate a story like this and carry it on for many months if not years. Most persons making sensational allegations about public figures are shown to be a fraud early on, or they simply disappear because the personal attacks and scrutiny are simply too much to bear. For most of these persons making fradulent accusations, the costs far outweigh the benefits of continuing to pursue the story.
Indeed, if it were so easy to come up with a fake story about someone, there would be hundreds, perhaps thousands of such stories floating around and known. But this is not the case for Senator Obama. As far as I know only one set of allegations that have not gone away have been made, and those are the allegations of Larry Sinclair. For these and many other reasons, even given some of the problems with Sinclair's story which I have pointed out, I believe on balance that what he claims to have happened on Nov. 6 and 7 actually happened, although of course I cannot be certain. It is up to a legitimate investigative reporter to look into the allegations in a sober, objective, and systematic manner.
Cant be true, after all he sat in a Christian church for over twenty years. ;-)
This is trash. Sinclair is trash. There is more than enough already in the real world to defeat Obama, no need to wallow in this slop.
I want you to listen to me. I did not have
"sexual relations" with that fellow (Larry Sinclair),
nor were we ever alone together.
Larry Sinclair on youtube claiming to have performed oral on Senator Obama:
Then get out of this thread so you don’t break a fingernail
I think of it as 'comic relief'.
I suspect the story is true, but given the poor credibility of the only witness, what value is it ever going to have?
I’m just trying to keep it simmering in case the Chicago PD ever gets around to confirming that Sinclair got calls from Donald Young. If that is true, then we’ll know he ain’t making it up.
Why doesn’t someone with the means to do so hire top-knotch investigators and get to the bottom of this?
Since the sodomites are a democRAT protected class, this angle won't get any traction in the sodomite controlled Drive-by media.
The story posits that another person he had relations with was murdered.
He did, after all, experiment with drugs. ;-)
“If Obama was doing this kind of stuff, you would expect to find many more cases of this behaviour, unless you think he only engaged in this type of activity once.”
There was perhaps also Donald Young, the gay man in his church who died mysteriously earlier this year.
My guess is that Larry Sinclair is telling the truth.
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.