The recent interview of Larry Sinclair which was published in the Dec 20- Jan 5, 2012 edition of the New Hampshire Herald makes clear why the Larry Sinclair story matters in 2012. See the New Hampshire Herald reports the story without any predisposed position. In 2008 the media reports by Politico, Huffington Post, Washington Post, Cleveland Leader, et al only reported the story in their efforts to discredit and fabricate Larry Sinclair’s past.
It is the mainstream media who as early as May 2011 made the Sinclair story matter in 2012. It was May 2011 when ABC News Diane Sawyer put a story on ABC World News and Nightline where she went after Newt Gingrich and his marital infidelities from the 1990′s. Diane Sawyer and ABC News pushed a story where they said Newt Gingrich was unfit to be president based on his personal life. Lets not forget Sawyer’s report was done and aired before Gingrich had even formerly announced he was seeking the GOP Presidential nomination.
Sharon Bialek (Left) with Attorney Gloria Allred (Right)
Then you have Politico.com and Jonathan Martin’s story on October 30, 2011 where Politico accused GOP candidate Herman Cain of sexual harassment. Not only did Politico refused to identify its source, Jonathan Martin went on national television saying they had a “duty” to protect the privacy of the accuser. When the media jumped on the “attack Herman Cain” train sleaze attorney Gloria Allred announces a press conference with her new client who will make public allegations of sexual harassment against Herman Cain.
Allred and her client Sharon Bialek (above) of Chicago, come out and follow the script Sinclair set forth in answers to questions from Politico.com’s Emily Schultheis who emailed Sinclair on July 28, 2011 at 1:07PM seeking to conduct and interview
Hi Mr. Sinclair,My name is Emily Schultheis, and I’m a reporter for POLITICO. I’m working on a story about people who made headlines during the 2008 election, and talking with them about what the experience was like. I’d like to talk to you about your experiences, how you dealt with it, what you’re up to now and if you have any advice for people who find themselves in similar situations in 2012.If you get a chance to talk, I’d really appreciate it! You can reach me here or at my desk – 703-341-4681 – all day.Thanks,EmilyEmily Schultheis Reporter, POLITICO 703-341-4681 office 571-356-5054 mobile eschultheis@politico.com
Emily:Thank you. I apologize for the need to record any verbal interviews, however due to the pending Parisi v Sinclair suit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia and the plaintiffs repeated use of Politico articles I have to be able to have a record of what I actually say to people. This was in no way a reflection on you whatsoever. I do hope you understand.
Hi Lawrence,
I completely understand; thanks for being willing to answer my questions via email as well.
Here’s my general list of questions:
-You made headlines in 2008 for your accusations against President Obama. How exactly did that come about?
-How did it feel to be the center of so much media attention?
-How did your view of the media change in the process?
-Did your view of political campaigns and politicians change as well? If so, how?
-Do you have any advice for others who find themselves in a similar situation in the future?
-Can you tell me about what you have been up to in the three years since the election?
-Anything else you’d like to add?
Please let me know if you have any questions – and thanks again for your help!
Best,
Emily
-Do you have any advice for others who find themselves in a similar situation in the future?
First and foremost, discuss with a trusted friend or even an attorney your intentions before ever going public. Once you make public allegations against any politician or political campaign be prepared for them to begin to comb over your entire life and the lives of anyone related to you; a friend; or an employer. Be prepared for the media to do everything in its power to destroy you if the politician you are accusing is the media’s choice. Don’t do like I did and respond to every single Internet post, comment or attempt to smear you (you will spend the entire time responding to these comments). Be up front just as I was if you have any past criminal history from the very beginning.
Understand that the Internet will be plastered with all kinds of vicious and untrue stories about you from people who live to attack people on the Internet but who will never publicly make those statements about you. Record any and all interviews and/or statements you give or make. If the interviewer does not agree to your recording the interview then politely decline to give it.
Do not ever condition an interview on payment of money to you or anyone else acting on your behalf. I can proudly say that , despite the claims that I “intended to profit financially” from my story, I never accepted; requested; or allowed payment from any media outlet for any interview or statement (Globe Magazine did pay for the right to take photos in my home and publish them.)
If your story is true, never back down no matter what is thrown at you and understand, they will throw everything they can find at you. Here I am three plus years later and I have not backed down.
Bialek told her fiance the Friday before and her father the day of going public with her claims alleging harassment by Cain. Bialek went public with an attorney by her side. What the media however failed to address were the so called details Allred set forth in a written statement Bialek read from. See Bialek’s “details” were all to similar to those which Sinclair gave Gloria Allred on February 22, 2008 in extensive phone conversations with her as to his claims about Barack Obama.
CBS news went so far as to ask Herman Cain if he would submit to a lie detector test as to the allegations made by Allred and client Bialek.
The Sinclair story matters in 2012 because the media has set the foundation for it to matter. ABC in its Iowa GOP Debate asked the candidates if a candidates “martial fidelity” should be a factor in people choosing their president. Barbara Walters asked Obama in an interview aired December 23, 2011 where Obama responded “I’m not big on someone’s personal lives being poked and prodded and that ends up being the primary issue.” But in 2008 Obama and Obama’s campaign staff were big on poking and prodded into peoples personals lives. Barack Obama and his campaign staff make the Sinclair story matter in 2012. It was the Obama campaign who by and through Attorney Andres Lopez, went on Puerto Rican television and called Sinclair a mental patient and said “he has been a headache to the campaign for about a year,” on April 10, 2008.
It was Obama campaign manager David Axelrod (left) who told Chicago Tribune reporter John Crewdson “we know who he is and we are going to destroy him,” and “we are going to tie him to the Clinton (Hillary) campaign…” It was the Obama campaign who put out on the Internet the completely untrue claims that “someone contacted the campaign claiming to represent Sinclair saying for $100,000 he could make the story go away.” This last attempt to accuse Sinclair of extortion had already been used by the Obama campaign in a statement they gave to the Chicago Tribune claiming Obama’s former high school pal tried to extort money from them. Neither of the campaigns alleged extortion attempts were ever reported to any law enforcement agency.
The Sinclair story matters in 2012 because everything the media did in 2008 in concert with the Obama campaign to try and destroy Sinclair has failed. It matters in 2012 because the media has made the personal lives of the GOP candidates matter.
NYT Reporter Serge F. Kovaleski
Since Sinclair first made his allegations against Barack Obama the media has gone to great lengths to try and sweep it under the rug. In January 2008 after posting his original video on YouTube New York Times reporter Serge F. Kovaleski (Left) contacted Sinclair via YouTube inbox. Kovaleski was interested in what Sinclair had told Chicago Tribune reporter John Crewdson and had even told Sinclair “you don’t want to talk to the trib, nobody reads them anymore, everybody reads the Times,” when he was told Crewdson was in Duluth meeting with Sinclair in person. Kovaleski would call Sinclair at least once a day and everything Sinclair told Kovaleski about who was interviewing him or wanted to have him on their show, would end up being cancelled the day after Kovaleski was told. On February 9, 2008 Kovaleski and the NYTimes published which many found to be an effort by the Times to try and cut off any questions about Obama’s drug use as a result of Sinclair’s allegations, Old Friends Say Drugs Played Bit Part in Obama’s Young Life . The NY Times went one step further by publishing an unsourced claim that GOP Candidate John McCain had a sexual affair with a female lobbyist despite both the lobbyist & McCain denying the claims.
The Times article was quickly followed by a succession of Internet postings attributed to the Obama campaign which included a wikipedia attack page originating from Barackobama.com.
Little did Matte Black realize his predictions of the polygraph results being completely bogus would be spot on. The Obama campaign was quick to allow its web site to be used to distribute emails that people could send out using others email addresses as being the sender. The campaign and web sites supportive of Obama decried Sinclair taking a polygraph and argued non-stop that the polygraph was not permissible as evidence because of it being unreliable. Once the web site Whitehouse.com announced that Sinclair had “failed” the polygraph those same Obama bloggers could not report the results fast enough. Even today the Politico.com’s, Huffington-Post etc… love to claim “Sinclair failed not one but two polygraph exams,” the filing of a video recorded by Edward Ira Gelb of the Sinclair polygraph the United States District Court (without permission or Sinclair’s knowledge) it is clear Sinclair was correct in his claims the reported polygraph results were biased without any doubt.
See: Sinclair Polygraph Video Raises Questions About Gelb’s Findings and Sinclair Polygraph Video Raises Questions About Gelb’s Findings Part II
But before the polygraph results were published (or the very little that was published compared originally claiming the video would be published online) the calculated effort to circulate false claims about Sinclair went into overdrive. From the Washington Post online version to the Cleveland leader so called “media” organizations published fake editorials and retraction letters. A February 21, 2008 Washington Post editorial online version which the Editor of the Washington Post said was not published by them but refused to provide a written statement that they were not responsible for the below piece republished on the Internet:
February 21, 2008 Washington Post Editorial page 1a2
“In late fall of 2007 Lawrence Sinclair approached campaign officials of the Sen.Barack Obama campaign, and told them a very disturbing story. Rob Allen of the Sen. Obama campaign stated. After the meeting had concluded the campaign officials ruled it off, as “just someone trying to make a buck.”
The following week they received a phone call, from a man claiming to represent Mr. Sinclair, and demanding $100,000.00 as restitution for his client.
Lawrence Sinclair has filed a federal suit against Barack Obama and others for harassment since the gay man released his video on YouTube.com, a Internet web-site for viewing homemade videos, alleging that, the Senator from Illinois and Mr.Sinclair shared oral sex and cocaine in the back of a Mr. Sinclair’s limo in Gurnee, IL in 1999.
The Post has learned that presiding Judge Donald Wilson is dismissing the case, due to credibility on Mr.Sinclair. Stating that the complainant has an extensive record of mischievous conduct. Further more such allegations warrant sound credible standards, which are not found in matters included in this suit.
Lawrence Sinclair was convicted of “fraud” two times and investigated eight times over 25 years, for trying to secure money for “blackmale” charges. Two of the defendants were political figures in Illinois and Indiana. Mr.Sinclair also has an extensive record of drug convictions. The Washington Post has learned.”
Hi,
This is Larry Sinclair.First. I am posting this message in venues where I know my situation is discussed.First off, let me apologize for the roller coaster ride I have put some of you through(myself included). I have been going through various issues as of late, and have been having quite a tough time. I sincerely appreciate all the support I have received from ALL OF YOU (you know who you are). However, I think it’s time this all was finished. I was not being honest. I did not give oral sex to Barack Obama, nor have I ever met him. I have just been extremely lonely lately, and I guess I needed attention. I want to assure you all the money I received from this (both from whitehouse.com and The Globe Magazine) will ALL go to charity. When all is said and done, I will NOT HAVE PROFITED from this. Now that I have disclosed this, I hope you all will respect my right to privacy, and let it rest. I have made some good friends during this, and will always cherish and respect the ones who have helped me.
Thank you,
Larry Sinclair
Sheila Bryant Atlanta, GA
Someone ought to tell the editor of this “newspaper” that he is just about four years late with his inquiry. It seems he doesn’t know that the mainstream media has vetted Sinclair’s story from beginning to end and found absolutely no evidence to corroborate his story.
but Ms. Bryant’s statement could not be further from the truth. The ”media” has not vetted anything. The Sinclair story matters in 2012 if for no other reason than to make people aware of the criminal actions bloggers like Bryant and the Obama campaign engage in to protect Obama from questioning. We will publish part II on Monday January 2, 2012 and part III on Wednesday January 4, 2012.
And what especially matters is stopping the overseas wars.