One thing that I can say for readers of this blog, and The Regulator, they love paying attention to detail as well as problem solving.
Over the past few weeks I have gotten different emails detailing observations about Larry Sinclair and his alleged “tryst” with Barack Obama back in November 1999 and the inconsistency of his tale.
Jay and DBKPC have written extensive accounts of Sinclair’s inconsistent story line but their work stops in 2008.
Now, I have decided to update some of those inconsistencies with a little help from some friends:
Recently someone wrote me an email about something that has bothered him for a while:
Strange observation about Larry’s story of sex and drugs in the limo. Whenever Larry gets really specific on the story, as he did in the KCEO interview last week and in the Hal Turner interview of 7/16/08, he says that Obama removed the crack pipe and crack from his right pocket with his right hand. Does this strike anyone else as exceedingly odd? Obama is clearly left-handed, so why would these items be in his right pocket and removed with his right hand?
The observation was unique and hadn’t been mentioned in any of the work compiled of Sinclair’s glaring contradictions.
Here is another observation by someone else:
When was Larry in contact with the reporter from the NY Post? I thought it predated Crewdson’s involvement.
If it happened before 12/23/2007, we could say that if Larry had told the reporter(s) about Young, gee whiz, Donald Young would still be alive!
Another gem from the same observer:
I don’t recall the exact timing of Larry’s alleged interactions with the legitimate press. Perhaps they were after Young’s death.
But even so, Larry would have informed reporters that he had been contacted by Young and some sort of investigation would have occurred in an effort to corroborate the interaction and, if possible, what had been relayed.
Larry insists his interaction with Young was the only response he ever received to his queries of the Obama campaign, so he would have dutifully reported that to any reporter trying to verify his tale. He didn’t. And if he had, the reporters would have informed him of Young’s demise immediately; Larry wouldn’t have been unaware of Young’s passing until Cao told him about it.
In conjunction with the above observation, another intrepid observer wrote this to me:
If any of those reporters had been told about Young and had investigated him back in the fall of 2007 or early spring of 2008 , they would have mentioned anything they had learned when the TUCC scandal broke. Can you imagine the delight they would have experienced in having gotten the story before Jeremiah Wright nearly derailed the Obama campaign? They would have floated into the office and broken out in song when they arrived. Didn’t happen as far as I can recall. Every legitimate news outlet in the country covered the Wright/TUCC debacle, so at least one of Larry’s reporter buddies should have had Young research ready to go to make their story stand out. No one did. ~ Intrepid Observer
Here’s the point:
Larry Sinclair never mentioned Donald Young to any of the reporters he spoke to. Chapter 7 of his book clearly shows there is no mention of Donald Young to any reporter that he spoke to. The inconsistency is glaring.
It’s all about his credibility. There was no Donald Young contact. The story was part of a greater con to get then Sen. Obama out of the running for President of The United States. (How’s that workin’ out for ya Sinclair?)
Recently Larry Sinclair chided someone for calling him a “con man”. In so many words he implied that no one could prove that he conned anyone out of anything (or words to that effect.) Yet, all one has to do is look at the entire Larry Sinclair and Barack Obama meme. It was a story designed to become a media sensation and ultimately remove Barack Obama from the presidential 2008 presidential race.
However, nobody in the main stream media bought Sinclair’s story because of his criminal background. In essence Sinclair, a multiple felony convicted FRAUD, was telling the world that Obama was a fraud for not coming out about his “recent” drug use in 1999.
The only people that bought the story were people who hated Obama for various reasons as well as bigots and neo-nazi types.
More to come in Part 2 of A Closer Look At Larry Sinclair’s Inconsistent Story
