Obama's Alleged Gay Sex and Drugs Limo Party

It's only slanderous bull@!$%# if its untrue. Otherwise it's true bull@!$%#.

Prove it. Anyone can say anything, that doesn't make it true. If anyone actually believes this he/she should have her/his head examined. This is preposterous and ridiculous and will not even warrant a response from Obama.

I hope that coke head Larry Sinclair gets sued by Obama for this defamatory statement. Lets see where Mr. Sinclair's Federal Civil Action goes. This guy is a loony. Barack Obama was never a State Representative. Where is the Polygraph Larry?

Barack Obama was never a State Representative.

That's not true. Obama was a Illinois State Senator, elected in 1996.

Exactly, a State Senator, not a State Rep.

Came here because of Jazz, not because I give a damn about this seed.

However, when you use the term "state representative [small caps on "representative"] that also includes a senator as well as a Representative.

wmo,

all I care about is if this is true or not.

Sorry for failing to use a Caps. The guy in the video said a State Rep, I assumed he meant it the way I meant it with a Capital R.

PS,

If charges are that MSNBC is helping to bury this story, what will they now due to bury it on NewsVine, which they now own

If charges are that MSNBC is helping to bury this story, what will they now due to bury it on NewsVine, which they now own

That is an interesting issue. Since MSNBC's takeover of the Vine, I haven't really seen many differences (still slow when lots of comments, etc), but I have noticed that the "top seeds" many times have NO comments, or very, very few. I have wondered why, but really haven't bothered to follow it up.

If it is true, unlike Chase, I do think it is important and would be detrimental to Obama.

I did get a kick out of the "gaydar" bit. I have a gay client who says his "gaydar" is absolutely infallible!

Prove it.

I hope that wasn't aimed at me, as I don't think it's true. I don't know that it isn't, however, hence my statement. Either way I don't care, which is why, either way, I think it's bull@!$%#.

Yeah, really. It isn't being publicized because it isn't even close to a story. It is a really bad joke by some guy with a video camera and an internet connection. Just as bad as saying that Obama was sworn in on The Quaran or that Kerry's Swift Boat was never attacked. Where do these trolls come from?

Chasing:
No, I wanted Newsguy to Prove it.

PS,

If charges are that MSNBC is helping to bury this story, what will they now due to bury it on NewsVine, which they now own

Until some shred of proof exists regarding this story, it SHOULD be buried; otherwise it's mud slinging in the worst way.

-Rob

Newsvine certainly isn't burying as this was at top of the vine - and their lack of censorship is pretty well documented

My wish was that Viners WOULD censor this self-advertisement garbage instead of the STUPID comment and vote it up to the top - giving it the attention it never deserved.

At least then we could all get angry at his next censorship article - a better place to discuss this crap

I wonder if this Sinclair creep is on Hillary's payroll . . .

Hmmmm?

Man. Folks aren't thinking much.

Until some shred of proof exists regarding this story, it SHOULD be buried; otherwise it's mud slinging in the worst way.

Uh, there is proof. An eye witness who actually participated, so to speak. Hell, people are convicted of murder on less direct "proof."

Now, whether it's credible or not, who knows. I will not waste my time to investigate that.

I wonder if this Sinclair creep is on Hillary's payroll . . .

Now you're thinking! Not Ron Paul (as suggested by some) but Hillary!

An eye witness who actually participated

An alleged eye witness, who won't come forward unless he gets national coverage. Sounds more like a cry for attention, if this eye witness even exists.

I agree, Keeping . . .

Obama's too smart to jeopardize his career with this kind of seamy encounter. The fact that such garbage passes as news is a damned shame.

Meanwhile, the Republicans continue to get blow jobs in public restrooms and nobody seems to give a damn.

Double standard? Yep!

Meanwhile, the Republicans continue to get blow jobs in public restrooms and nobody seems to give a damn.

Double standard? Yep!

Talk about a double standard, and a lie at that, eh Rebecca.

First off, the pub in the restroom did NOT perform sex. Didn't you read any of the articles.

Secondly, it was all over the papers for months, and still is from time to time.

Third, except for this seed, where have you seen these allegations against Obama before?

Seems to me you are so biased you can't discern truth from fiction any more.

Now THAT's a double standard.

Something blue around?

Sounds more like a cry for attention, if this eye witness even exists.

To be fair, I can think of a couple of televangelists who've been taken down in just such circumstances by just such people. Oh, and a DC mayor....if only this allegation re: Obama had been videotaped. He'd give Paris a run for her money, I'm sure.

Oh yeah, and Linda Tripp. Sort of.

Sure, but there are a few differences, at least so far. Tripp had recorded conversations. Barry was caught on film (as you alluded to). Haggard left voicemails that Jones had saved. There was documentary evidence of Bakker's payments to Jessica Hahn. It doesn't seem that we have any of that here.

If documentary evidence turns up, I'll certainly consider it. But so long as what we have are the breathless accusations coming from a conspiracy site with an ax to grind, it doesn't really merit serious consideration, and only barely merits the attention I've given to this thread so far.

Or, as my sister so bluntly put it, "Who gives a sh**?"

Uh yeah. This has about as much likelihood of being true as Hillary offing Vince Foster and covering it up. C'mon, you can't be so blindly partisan as to take this trash seriously, can you?

Notice I wrote, "IF" this is true...

I'm not at all blindly partisan. I continue to study and research all the candidates, because this is one year when none of us can afford to screw up and waste our vote.

I did listen to the whole 54 Minutes, unfortunately it was probably the biggest waste of time ever.

I find it quite hilarious that this guy would say that he was making $300k/wk selling cocaine but Obama had to get some for both of them! What a joker this guy is.

Living in Mexico, a Drug Dealer, but yet he just happened to be in Chicago on 11/6/99 in the same place as his Limo driver (I don't ever recall Obama riding around in a limo in Chicago) who just happens to come up with the idea that these two meet.

WOW This is way more amature than the whole Swift Boat thing!

He makes several verifiable claims. What have you done to verify / contradict them? What has anyone done? If you did with Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, Larry Craig, etc.; why not here? Is that prejudice?

Just because a claim is made doesn't obligate the rest of us to chase down the evidence. That's the responsibility of the person writing the story. When evidence is produced, it will be come news. Until then, it's just bad writing.

I'm a little half way through listening to this silly interview and as of it I've heard nothing that is a verifiable claim, so I'm quite curious what you found to be verifiable in this archangelrichard.

I'll finish listening to this for diligence, but I don't believe there will be any verifiable information that comes out of this. In fact, this man is basically refusing already to do it because he doesn't want people to be able to pick it apart, he's pretty much said just that. His whole "proof" is that supposedly he's talked to several reporters and shown them everything. If he wants to have any credibility, at least give the names of these supposed reporters who he's been talking to so they can at least verify he's providing any evidence other than his story.

Overall this doesn't seem likely in any regard. How does he have receipts from 1999 for a hotel room? A supposed multimillionaire drug dealer is going to file that on his taxes or what? Even if that was true, that only proves his whereabouts at that time, it still proves no connection to Obama.

And judging by his YouTube videos, and that he says he currently lives a community high-rise, I really doubt his claim that he was selling $300/k in drugs a month at the time.

Overall there's nothing here worth reporting at the moment in the least. An unbelievable story, from an unbelievable man, with no proof but forward is not a cover up, its a waste of time.

Just to follow up that I finished listening to the interview, and as suspected there is not one shred of verifiable evidence put forward. According to Sinclair, his best proof is the limo driver, a limo driver who is a supposed personal friend of Obama, who will supposedly come forward only if the story gets picked up. So his best proof won't come out until someone runs without proof?

Also, when the interviewers suggested that maybe Obama would get his friend to shut up essentially, Sinclair stated that he would bet Obama was trying desperately to figure out who this friend was and that he doesn't think Obama will be able to find him fast enough to stop him. Those links don't connect very well, if at all.

he says they have been investigated by reporters - i am questioning why no news outlet has run a story debunking this, that's their forte (especially FOX). He says he can describe body parts (OK, Ewwww) There is enough to his story that if an investigative reporter, private investigator, etc. wanted to find out .....

The comments that this can't possibly be true are as lacking in objectivity as those that this must be true - these are childish, blind, partisan

I don't know what the truth is. I do remember Sen. Eagleton, McGovern's first VP choice in 72 who AFTER he was nominated, it was found out had been to a psychiatrist (Nixon dirty tricks). Obama has NOT been 'vetted' yet and these kind of stories will come out.

For those of you who believe that "this can't be so", then prove it can't and protect your candidate because surely the republicans will bring this up - give your guy some ammo, here.

in other words, quit the partisan comments below and start with the proof, actual proof, not inuendo - before this gets out of hand.

Obama has NOT been 'vetted' yet and these kind of stories will come out.

Are you serious? The Clintons have done a huge amount of vetting no doubt as did Alan Keyes.

Let me ask you if this makes any sense:

A cocaine dealer, earning $200k/wk, needs to ask some new guy he has never met before for Cocaine

The same man, has had 9 years to leak and get paid for a story that is worth a lot of money if it is true and verifiable

His explanation for not divulging it in 2000 (when Obama ran for The House) or 2004 (when Obama ran for Senate) was that he wasn't living in Illinois and it didn't matter

His explanation for divulging it now is because Obama lied about when he stopped using drugs (there have even been some reports that Obama's written about drug use doesn't comport with his friends' recollections, they think he never really did drugs) and he wants the public to know the truth, but of course he had to throw in the bit about fellatio too, though he doesn't care about that

Who should we trust, let's put it to the Jury:

Do you believe a guy that says he sold $200k/wk (more than $10 Million/year) of cocaine but needed to procure some from a State Senator (he can't even get the title right) or a US Senator who has been in elected office for more than 10 years and has endured vetting by one of the best teams in the business?

archangelrichard, I don't really need to help this article make any more money than it has, so I'm not going to go on about this, but I never said it can't possibly be true, I said there is nothing here to go on, and personally, no I don't find this guy believable as it stands. Listening to him for an hour did nothing but further convince me there is nothing here. I'm all for being corrected though.

As for you calling people partisan and telling them to provide proof, what are you talking about? Mr. Sullivan is making these charges and providing no proof. What can anyone do to prove or disprove this right now?

He is offering nothing for actual evidence other than to say he's shown the evidence to reporters and to trust him. How is that evidence? I'd be glad to contact the reporters and ask them if they've been working with him at all on this story. We can start there, never mind what the evidence even is at this point. He's offering nothing. How do we know he's really been talking to all of the reporters so intensely as he states? Why should there be a surprise no network has run a story about this?

For a guy who is so concerned about this story getting out there, he sures seems pretty afraid of presenting an supporting information. Being cautious about his story isn't partisan, its logical.

Sinclair must owe a lot of time and/or money for back taxes. He's incriminating himself rather seriously.

he didn't say that he asked Obama to get him some Cocaine, but that Obama acquired cocaine for his use. that could have been because he wanted someone to do cocaine with, because he liked the guy, because he was drunk; whatever Obama's reason.

Sullivan says he has given proof to reporters, times, dates, can describe body parts, etc. which would be proof.

The big story here is the old confirm or deny bit - he is getting neither. The Obama cultist here are giving the old "can't possibly be true" denial (and the other partisans may be gloating "must be true") and somewhere in the middle is a learned way of verifying or refuting (like proof Obama was elsewhere, and then there's that nasty body part - although Obama having a tattoo that shows in a receipt from a parlor or a dated picture would also work)

where is the objectivity?

Give me a break.

We sleuth here, we sleuth there. Good work.

Anyhow, I wish I could take back the time I wasted listening to that stupid show. On the full show, they began by referring to Obama as "Jungle Boy".

Oh. My. God. This can't be real, can it?

Dear Murray does a god enough job of debunking the slander, but he's a dick. Seen the comments?

The Right Perspective's hosts, Frank from Queens and John of Staten Island, were backing Rudy, because they're born-and-bred New Yorkers who saw first-hand how Rudy turned NYC around after the disaster known as the Dinkins Administration.

They're a minority of New Yorkers who manage to grasp reality and the tabloid joke Rudy was before 9/11.

I'd have to think they're on crack to support the loser who turned a string of failures that worsened the death toll and aftermath into some glorified hero myth. The EMS Command was at the site of the first bombing and police and fire couldn't communicate, how to plan for disaster, pleease!

It must be the toxic air at Fresh Kills affecting their mental ability. Rudy used his failures to plan, failures to respond on 9/11 and failures to get protection for the clean up teams or treatment for the site related illness as so PR fiction show for the road. It didn't even play well in Red Florida. Give me a break.

Pamela:

Please, as if anyone suspected such a disastor could happen (PLEASE, no conspiracy theories).

Fact is that Rudy did clean up NYC. Do you live there? If you do, and didn't see the huge change in that city Rudy made, you are blind.

If you don't, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

I thought he had all of the homeless people secretly killed. < /joke >

wmolaw...Pamela:Please, as if anyone suspected such a disastor could happen (PLEASE, no conspiracy theories).

Conspiracy theory, get a freaking clue. Yes I do live here but basic research will help anyone.

In the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (February 26, 1993) a car bomb was detonated below Tower One of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 1,500-lb (680 kg) urea nitrate-fuel oil device was intended to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into Tower Two, bringing both towers down and killing up to 250,000 people. It failed to do so, but did kill six people and injured 1,042.

The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed...

... letters to various New York newspapers just before the attack, in which he claimed he belonged to the 'Liberation Army, Fifth Battalion'. These letters made three demands: an end to all US aid to Israel, an end to US diplomatic relations with Israel, and a demand for a pledge by the United States to end interference "with any of the Middle East countries interior affairs." He stated that the attack on the World Trade Center would be merely the first of such attacks if his demands were not met.

Many of the tenants moved out of the towers or made plans to move out as their leases expired. Many who worked in the buildings continued to believe that the site would remain a target for attacks.

June 8, 1999: New York Emergency Command Center Opened in WTC Building 7 New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani opens a $13 million emergency command center on the 23rd floor of World Trade Center Building 7.

The center is intended to coordinate responses to various emergencies, including natural disasters like hurricanes or floods, and terrorist attacks. The 50,000 square foot center has reinforced, bulletproof, and bomb-resistant walls, its own air supply and water tank, beds, showers to accommodate 30 people, and three backup generators. It also has rooms full of video monitors from where the mayor can oversee police and fire department responses. It is to be staffed around the clock and is intended as a meeting place for city leaders in the event of an act of terrorism. The center is ridiculed as "Rudy's bunker."

Most controversial is the 6,000-gallon fuel tank. In 1998 and 1999, Fire Department officials warn that the fuel tank violates city fire codes and poses a hazard. According to one Fire Department memorandum, if the tank were to catch fire it could produce "disaster." [CNN, 6/7/1999; London Times]

That was common knowledge and the basis for arguing against Guliani's move to put the command center at the WTC site. If you don't know anything it's better to do some research before tossing out claims of conspiracy theory. There's no theory involved, it's history.

Pamela:

I said that no one expected the attack that occurred. Did you not read my post?

Now, tell me, if that WAS expected, why the hell would they place the "emergency command center" in the middle of the target?

Again, conspiracy theories are just not really worth much, and really don't live up to the light of scrutiny.

I also notice you didn't address the fact that Rudy cleaned up NYC after the debacles of the prior administrations (especially Dinkins).

Are you agreeing with me on that point?

This guy appears to be a less-credible Alex Jones. A less credible Alex Jones. I'm not going to hold my breath for his "evidence."

I'm not going to hold my breath for his "evidence."

Oh, I agree. If the man has cards to lay on the table, then he better damn well lay his cards on the table. Otherwise it's just hot air.

Those urban-myth emails about Obama being a muslim have been flying around the internet long before the primaries began, so I don't think Hillary's team can be blamed for those! My own mother forwarded such an email to me last summer, and I had to correct her and point out to her that she was forwarding bogus information (and my mother is not a Hillary staff worker!).

Tsk, tsk.

I will not vote for McCain because I don't like him for President and for another reasons.
Our Evita can be her oponent and I don't give half a peanut, that she is the nominee for the Dems does not energize me to vote for John.

More like a sinking canoe, if you ask me.

....

Why?

The MSM isn't going to announce "Breaking! We have just discovered that Obama did not, in fact, get a blow-job from a male coke-head while smoking crack in a limo"

They'll check out the story and, if there's nothing to it, you'll never see it again.

The media's job is not to debunk every crazed allegation by a raving lunatic on national television. It's insane to assume that they should and it sets up an aburd self-fulfilling prophesy whereby people can shriek about media bias when their bull@!$%# pet-fictions don't make the nightly news because they're not true.

Kill:

True. The question is, and it is a sensible one, if it is true, or able to be substantiated to the network's standard, will they run the story?

There have been times when networks ran unsubstantiated stories before, remember Dan Rather?

I hope they have cleaned up their act since then.

They'll check out the story and, if there's nothing to it, you'll never see it again.

KF,

Exactly what I meant (even if it wasn't clear). If I never see anything about in the MSM, especially conservative side. I'm moving on.

wmolaw:

Don't be a dipwad. The answer to your question is Yes.

Jack:

Hell, sh%t on you. That is not, necessarily the answer. Many in the media might (with some justification) believe "who cares," and that it shouldn't affect Obama's status as a candidate.

I'm sure the press would NEVER shut down stories for political purposes, right?

Man, have you become delusional?

Jack:

By the way, what exactly is a "dipwad?"

If you're going to insult me, insult me in a way that I can clearly determine to what EXTENT I am being insulted.

"Dipwad" is far too swishy, wishy washy.

wmolaw:

A juicy sex story about a major-party candidate?

No. They wouldn't.

Dipwad

Jack:

I have taken great offense. You, my dear sir may not be a dipwad, but you are definitely a "diptard."

Diptard

And if you actually think the media would pull down their blessed candidate for a "juicy" sex story, you're nuts.

The only thing the media blesses are rating. They absolutely would.

wmolaw:

Oh. Gee. You have literally NO contrary examples. I got lots. Should I bother listing?

non Obama supporter who has always voted right of center

The first step is admitting you have a problem...

kidding! ;-)

Why did you do that? Seems to me the poster is merely reporting what someone else has alleged.

If that were the appropriate time to "report" an article as misconduct, methinks every post on NV should be so reported.

What about all the other crazy, wacky stuff on NV, you know, the conspiracy theorists re: 9/11, etc.

Do you report them as well?

Well it does say "alleged", anyway.

he's a troll, and the article undermines NV

If this is the top current article we might as well all go home

Why did you do that? Seems to me the poster is merely reporting what someone else has alleged.

Not quite. Newsguy appears to be the owner of the blog on which the interview appears. Doing a little searching on TEH INTRAWEBS shows he's been pimping this story pretty hard. Check also Jim Dent's link in #10.

I don't consider this article as being misconduct.

Its misconduct...when you report an article as misconduct...in order to stifle discussion of it.

If this story is false then it is defamatory and illegal therefore misconduct.

If Newsguy does in fact own the site being linked to, it is indeed misconduct. Seeding your own site is forbidden in the user agreement. Newsguy, care to jump in here?

If this story is false then it is defamatory and illegal therefore misconduct.

I dont see where Newsguy states his belief that the story is either true or false in his article.

PS,

If the story is false, Larry Sinclair can be reported for misconduct, but since i don't believe hes a NV member, I doubt he or Calvin would care.

Defamation consists of the following:
(1) a defamatory statement;
(2) published to third parties; and
(3) which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.

We can argue whether or not using the words: Alleged, alleging, allegations, are enough to steer him clear of the law.

According to Making Radio: A Practical Guide to Working in Radio by Steve Ahern, page 75:

OK, if you go to the story this article links to, you'll find, that Newsguy does in fact own the blog this story is coming from. Look down the left side, NewsGuy aka Peter Goodman even uses the same avatar he uses here. The question is, is this legal?

OK, if you go to the story this article links to, you'll find, that Newsguy does in fact own the blog this story is coming from. Look down the left side, NewsGuy aka Peter Goodman even uses the same avatar he uses here. The question is, is this legal?

well known censorship champion CHILL has already reported it - a few more and the garbage is gone

then we can debate my ethics at championing reporting trash - but somewhere else.

hey Pasi,

you might be correct but its useless @!$%# and looks really silly as a top NV article

its spam really

It gets even more interesting...

Mr. Matt Drudge, Jr. is the author of a site called "Anti Racist Losers," and also goes by the sobriquet "News Guy."

He is a frequent poster at white power websites like VNN, NIM-Busters, and the Hal Turner Message boards.

We are currently engaged in a legal battle over his attempts to defame me by suggesting that I am working with leftist groups to hack Hal Turner's site.

Mr. Drudge, Jr. has been served notice that he needs to cease and desist to avoid further legal action.

Link.

Man, unbelievable.

If a person came onto NV and just looked at the front page, saw the headline of this article (for it is an article, not a seed) and saw the number of comments I can imagine a person thinking "Hmmmm, where there is smoke there is fire!"

I mean, come ON, almost 100 comments.

As to "libel," Newsguy is merely reporting what someone else has said, can't really get a credible case for libel from that.

And for those that really care, Double Demon's post is accurate as far as it goes. However, with Obama, clearly a public figure, you need to read the Sullivan case (Sullivan v. NYT) to get an accurate picture of whether or not this could, in any way, be possibly libel.

Unless I missed it, he must of taken his name off the site, I don't see it.

It would be my understanding that this would be a violation of CoH .i.e. self-promotion. Good catch Jim

I does seem like self-promotion to me.

I've read Sullivan, I think everyone reads in in Con Law. I believe actual malice is present here.

The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity

NY TIMES v SULLIVAN Wikipedia Entry.

Thinking if the story is about Republican the Media could have a field day in the front pages .

yes... but at least we're acknowledging that this is crap. I would love it if a network news channel put this on the air with our comments next to it...

Clintonian Tactics

? I don't remember Clinton doing anything like this.

Hell yeah!

Resto:

I don't know, getting blown by some gay guy and smoking crack isn't up there on my "party" meter.

But, vive la difference, I guess.

I don't know, getting blown by some gay guy and smoking crack isn't up there on my "party" meter.

Well... then... maybe we need a leader that gives good head ;-)

Restso:

Okay, as long as female. Who knows, could give the meaning of "diplomacy" a whole new meaning!