skip to main content









Donation Heart Ribbon

Political Analysis: When Do Political Attacks Become Libelous?

Editor's Note: In this discussion, we quoted details about author Larry Sinclair. Those details came from an article on We neglected to attribute or to vet those details. We regret that we failed in our obligation to fully investigate that issue before reporting on it.


Aired 11/4/09

As President, Barack Obama is a target for all manner of criticism both political and personal. But when do allegations against the President, or any public figure, cross the line and become libelous? KPBS Political Correspondent Gloria Penner discusses the protections and limits of the First Amendment.

MAUREEN CAVANAUGH (Host): I'm Maureen Cavanaugh, and you're listening to These Days on KPBS. Which of these words do not belong together: murder, cocaine, sex, the White House? If you said the White House, then you have not read the new book by Barack Obama-nemesis, Larry Sinclair. The book expands on some of the most scandalous claims made by Sinclair during last year's presidential race. For awhile, the Obama campaign debunked each allegation of homosexual activity, drug use and murder made by Sinclair, but then decided not to acknowledge the unsubstantiated claims at all. Now that Sinclair has published a book filled with allegations against the president of extramarital sex and illegal activity, including the murder of a former lover, it got KPBS political correspondent Gloria Penner wondering just how far can an author go in writing a defamatory book? If the accusations are not true, can the president sue? And when do statements made about public figures become libelous? Gloria is here now with the answers. Good morning, Gloria.

GLORIA PENNER (KPBS Political Correspondent): Oh, good morning, Maureen. What an interesting subject we have.

CAVANAUGH: Well, tell us a little bit more about these accusations made in this book by Larry Sinclair. Is there a storyline? Does he have a whole tale to tell?

PENNER: Not really. I mean, there’s no storyline. It’s simply a chronology of what he considers charges against Obama and these include, as you said, that he used and sold cocaine, that he engaged in homosexual affairs, and he played a role in the December 2007 murder of his alleged former lover, Donald Young, the choir director of Obama’s Chicago church, just days before the 2008 Iowa caucus. So, I mean, if we would think of a storyline it would really be the storyline leading up to the election of the president. He explains how the Obama campaign, David Axelrod, for example, and Obama himself used David Young to contact and seek out information from Sinclair, who he had told of Obama’s crimes and actions. But interestingly enough, he also charges that Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Beau Biden, who is the Delaware Attorney General, issued an arrest warrant on fabricated charges in an attempt to discredit Sinclair’s national press club news conference, which Sinclair arranged and never took place.

CAVANAUGH: Now, this is – this book is not the first time…


CAVANAUGH: …that Larry Sinclair has made these accusations. How has Barack Obama responded to them?

PENNER: Well, he really hasn’t. Sinclair is familiar to political junkies and reporters as the source of these outlandish allegations about the senator. He appears to be the sort of person who is at the margin of every presidential campaign. We’ve seen it before. Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton had their own obscure accusers with dramatic allegations but as the old media—I mean old media meaning TV, radio, print—ignores him, Sinclair has taken full advantage of the internet and has a video in which he makes his claims that have been viewed more than 900,000 times on YouTube. So there are people there who are watching. At this point, we look back at his record and he does have a 27-year criminal record with a specialty in crimes involving deceit. It includes forgery charges in two states. He had a 16-year jail sentence from one of them. He has an outstanding warrant, according to the Pueblo County, Colorado sheriff for forging an acquaintance’s signature and stealing her tax refund. So, you know, he basically does address his own criminal past but his story has been generally ignored by the mainstream media because he can’t substantiate his allegations against the president.

CAVANAUGH: Now, for the sake of this discussion, let’s assume that Larry Sinclair’s claims against President Obama are unfounded. You spoke with These Days legal analyst Dan Eaton about the issue of libel when public figures are involved. What did you find out?

PENNER: I did. We talked about the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan decision, and that actually established the standard for actual malice when we talked about public figures, and that happened in 1964 during the civil rights era which allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in the southern part of the United States. Now, it was one of the key decisions that supported the freedom of the press and the actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff, that’s the one who had the bad things said about him, in a defamation or libel case has to 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. That’s a very high burden of proof on the plaintiff and very difficult in proving. Essentially, what’s going on inside a person’s head, and these cases generally involve public figures.

CAVANAUGH: It’s part of how highly we value the first amendment in the United States, isn’t that where this has come from?

PENNER: Exactly, it does. That’s – it’s a defense of the first amendment, freedom of speech. And if Barack Obama had to prove, if he took Sinclair to court, he would have to prove that Larry Sinclair actually had malice when he made these statements. So I did ask Dan Eaton, the These Days legal analyst, what is malice? And this is what Dan said.

DAN EATON (KPBS Legal Analyst): Malice means that you have to prove in a civil suit that the statement was made knowing that it was false or with a reckless disregard for whether it was true or not, and that is a very tough standard to meet, indeed, which probably explains why public figures don’t often sue for defamation. Another reason the public figures do not sue is frankly because the public figure presumably is going to be more famous than their accuser. You tend only to perpetuate and reinforce the very statements you wish had never been publicized in the first place. Another reason is because these suits are very expensive. Notwithstanding the fact that it’s very tough to prove these charges, it is a very expensive undertaking and it’s a tremendous distraction of time and effort that a public figure presumably would rather spend on doing those things that made them public figures in the first place.

PENNER: So you can see why it’s pretty tough for a public figure to spend all this time and money and to try to prove that there was actual malice, especially since the public figure is so much more likely to be known by the public rather than the accuser. And why give the accuser this platform?

CAVANAUGH: Now, as you said, that New York Times v. Sullivan decision from the U.S. Supreme Court came about in the 1960s. Before then, there was a whole different world…

PENNER: It was.

CAVANAUGH: …for public figures and suing for libel. Tell us about that.

PENNER: Well, I actually went back as far as I could in the archives to see about other lawsuits involving famous figures, and I found one in which President Franklin D. Roosevelt was attacked when he was a candidate for vice president on the Democratic ticket. And he brought criminal action against the editor of the Providence Journal, who charged that Roosevelt had destroyed or sequestered records of the Navy department when he was Undersecretary of the Navy. Roosevelt charged that the editor was set up by the Republican Party. Roosevelt was running as a Democrat. And he tried to recover a half a million dollars in damages. In those days, half a mil was a lot. I don’t know if he won. I went through the archives to try to find out what the disposition of that case was and was never able to find it. But I enjoyed what his lawyer said. His lawyer said, loose notions prevail with respect to the privilege of repeating false charges against public men in a political campaign. There exists no privilege to assail falsely a man’s personal honor.


PENNER: And I thought that really set it up.

CAVANAUGH: That’s wonderful. That’s a great oratory of the past.

PENNER: It’s true.

CAVANAUGH: Now, Larry Sinclair’s accusations against President Obama are certainly not the only personal accusations being made against the president. What are some of the other issues that have come up and been promoted by Obama’s political enemies? And do any of them rise to the level of libel?

PENNER: Well, here are those that you’ve probably already heard and some of them have nothing to do with defamation or character, but that he was born in Kenya, that he’s a Muslim, you know, and that’s certainly not defamation of character, that he’s a Christian radical who hates America, that he was born in Libya, that he’s a socialist or a fascist or a communist, that he supports death panels, that he would deny Medicare for seniors, and, again, whether they rise to the level of libel, again, malice would have to be proved. And Dan Eaton has another explanation why we don’t see many lawsuits by public figures, especially presidents.

EATON: You have to realize that public figures, especially people as prominent as President Obama, have something that their accusers really don’t and that is a bully pulpit of a tremendous magnitude. And, therefore, they are in a uniquely well-situated position, separate and apart from the court, to set the record straight because they have the public attention. That is why they are public figures, after all, and, therefore, a legal remedy may therefore be a very poor substitute for the remedy they already have at their disposal, which is the continued attention of the public and in President Obama’s case, a willingness for at least some segment of the public to believe them over their accusers.

CAVANAUGH: Well, I’m interested in hearing what Dan Eaton has to say, I wonder how that applies to private citizens if a false statement hurts their reputation or their career. And let’s talk about the case of former Orange County Assemblyman Mike Duvall. He made statements about having an affair with a lobbyist from SDG&E. Tell us about that situation. That happened earlier this year.

PENNER: Well, yes, a Sempra Energy lobbyist, her name was Heidi Barsuglia, she was the subject of sexual boasting by former Assemblyman Mike Duvall, boasting which was caught on tape in a legislative committee hearing in which Duvall is detailing his sexual encounters with two lobbyists. He resigned. She returned to work. The Justice Department didn’t file any charges against Duvall and it looks as though there won’t even be an ethics inquiry by the legislature, so this may fade away unless Barsuglia takes legal action, which she might. Now the lobbyist denies any sexual affair and she’s described as examining all her legal options, so the question is what legal options does she have? And here’s what Dan’s take is on whether the lobbyist might sue.

EATON: Because a public figure is making the statement doesn’t make the person about whom he is making the statement a public figure. In fact, the lobbyist herself may very well be a private figure subject to all of the protections under the lower standard that applies to slanderous and libelous statements about private figures. Just because a public figure is making the statement does not mean the stronger standard of New York Times versus Sullivan applies. That standard only applies when the allegedly defamatory statement is made about the public figure. Is a lobbyist really a public figure? Well, that is highly debatable, in my opinion. And if she is, in fact, a private figure and if, in fact, these statements were not true or substantially true, that is to say the gist was not true—that’s what substantial truth means—then she may very well pursue a claim for defamation.

CAVANAUGH: So I guess in at least this case, private citizens have a bit more rights than public figures.

PENNER: They do. But they would have to establish that the defendant, in this case Mike Duvall, intentionally made a false and defamatory statement, that the statement concerned the plaintiff, that the statement was made to at least one third party—and that was on tape, of course—and the statement caused harm to the plaintiff. Those are the four areas that would have to be proven.

CAVANAUGH: This has been fascinating. You’re going to be writing more about this in your blog…


CAVANAUGH: Okay, terrific. Thank you so much.

PENNER: You’re welcome, Maureen.

CAVANAUGH: I’ve been speaking with Gloria Penner, KPBS Political Correspondent, host of Editors Roundtable and San Diego Week. You can read her weekly blog, it’s called Political Fix on our website at Stay with us. Coming up on These Days, a conversation with Senator George McGovern. We’ll be back in a moment here on KPBS.

To view PDF documents, Download Acrobat Reader.


Avatar for user 'citizenwells'

citizenwells | November 5, 2009 at 12:41 p.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

I am Mr. Wells of the Citizen Wells blog.
I have covered the Larry Sinclair storie(s) more than any other source on the planet.
This involved lots of real research and hard work.
I am also a walking encyclopedia of facts about Obama.
Once again due to lots of hard work and concern for this country.
Would you like to know the truth about the Larry Sinclair book and storie(s)?
The no brainer statement is that Obama has not sued Sinclair.
For that matter, I have long hoped for Obama to sue me for my coverage of the story. My reason for saying so is obvious.
I am well educated and have a strong background.
I do, very much, care about this country.
And by the way, my blog has a high readership.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'citizenwells'

citizenwells | November 5, 2009 at 12:50 p.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

I also wish to notify you, out of fairness, that I intend to write about your article and interview.
It is apparent that many assumptions were made by you and/or your resources.
If you wish to respond with any research you may have done, I will respond accordingly.
My question to you is sincere.
Do you want to know the truth?
A great many lies have been told about Sinclair.
Much of this was an orchestrated attempt by the Obama camp and the likes of David Axelrod. This is not conjecture on my part.
I have received multiple death threats for simply reporting.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Kstreet67'

Kstreet67 | November 5, 2009 at 5:49 p.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

I have also written about your article, which I thought was on point when it came to the legal points about libel.

However, as I stated on my blog as an "update":

UPDATE: In the interest of full disclosure, I have read the book and Ms. Penner’s account is not entirely accurate. The choir director’s name was Donald Young.

The NPC press conference that Ms. Penner says never took place, did in fact take place and Sinclair was arrested AFTER the press conference.

Please visit my blog for the actual links as well as a page dedicated to reviewing Sinclair's book back in August of this year.

My Blog:

Sinclair Book Review:

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'koobee'

koobee | November 5, 2009 at 6:53 p.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago


Please sue Larry Sinclair. We would all love a seat in that courtroom.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'louis'

louis | November 5, 2009 at 8:48 p.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

What a bunch of bull have reported!
I have followed Larry's story from the beginning...
For this woman to say the press conf. never took place is a LIE !!!!!
I would LOVE for Obama to try and sue Larry Sinclair....
Please do your homework...before you report LIES!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Kstreet67'

Kstreet67 | November 6, 2009 at 5:49 a.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

Louis stop being such a drama queen. I think you are the same louis that has supported Sinclair for a while and posts the same pro-Sinclair garbage on Free Republic.

A person can read information erroneaously and report it erroneaously. It does not mean its a lie. Its an error. Get over yourself and your dramatics. Makes you look "effite". Oh...I forgot...nevermind.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'LarrySinclair'

LarrySinclair | November 6, 2009 at 7:37 a.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

First, Mrs. Cavanaugh did make out-right false statements when she claimed "For awhile, the Obama campaign debunked each allegation of homosexual activity, drug use and murder made by Sinclair, but then decided not to acknowledge the unsubstantiated claims at all." The Obama campaign never debunked any allegation nor did the likes of Sheila Bryant, posting above as Kstreet67 and her little internet stalker unit.

Second: Gloria Penner has never even read my book, in fact after careful review of the above transcript Ms. Penner was using the press release that was received from the PR firm hired to do media publicity for the book. For Ms. Penner to make statements as to whether the book had a story line when she herself has not read the book only shows her bias.

Third: Ms. Penner did knowing lie in the above transcript and even made statements that she took from internet attacks posted on the internet and failed to inform her listeners that she was in fact repeating things she had read on the internet and that she had not in fact taken the time to verify them.

Ms. Bryant has come to post on this transcript as she and her group continue to this day, monitor every word I write and every twitter I post. What Sheila Bryant will not post here is her threats to physically attack other people, her racists comments, her attacks and encouraging others along with her cohorts to attack my under aged nieces & nephews, her foul mouth, her daily filing of false TOS complaints to have my accounts suspended etc...

I will state here what I stated to the Station Manager and in a voice mail to Ms. Penner: To knowingly make false statements on air and call yourself a journalist is unacceptable. If Ms. Penner and Ms. Cavanaugh wish to make statements about the Book Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder? they might want to actually read the book first, rather than scour the internet for comments that have repeatedly been demonstrated to be false and made solely in attempts to smear me.

I will not back down from the request for an on air retraction and apology, which both Ms. Cavanaugh and Ms. Penner owe in this case. I am also faxing a letter to the Station Manager requesting air time on KPBS to set the record straight on the misrepresentations made by these two women.

The point here is you have two people who claim to be journalist who have used their positions at Public Broadcasting funded with tax payer dollars to make out right untrue statements about an individual and a book that they took off the internet from comments made by Obama supporters, and without ever reading a single page of the book they slammed! At least read the book if you are going to make comments about it. I will be more than happy to send you both a copy at no charge.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'LarrySinclair'

LarrySinclair | November 6, 2009 at 7:38 a.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

I expect to see yet more comments from Sheila Bryants cesspool of associates who are hardly the open minded, objective type she tried to portray in her above comment. Perhaps KPBS followers should read the real Kstreet67 aka Sheila Bryant of Lawrenceville, Georgia at and where they send out post cards made to appear as if they were sent out by crime stoppers, or where they solicit people being kidnapped and murdered, etc....Or the fact that Ms. Bryant scanned a copyrighted book on her computer and provided it to her associates who openly boasted of putting it on the internet to anyone who wanted to download it for free to keep sales down.....

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Zoey'

Zoey | November 6, 2009 at 9:02 a.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

Larry Sinclair is a crook! He stole my grandmas Chihuahua.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Kstreet67'

Kstreet67 | November 6, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

Larry Sinclair is an habitual liar and will say anything that makes himself look good in a strangers eyes. Those who have followed his every move since Feb. 2008 know more about his lies and his death threats and attempts at intimidation just because we spoke out against his lies. He constantly uses fascistic tactics like the one above when someone speaks oyr against his lies. I have been speaking out against his lies for almost 2 years and all he can do is TRY and intimidate me and others, as well as "project" his terrible personality on to others, making THEM sound like what he really is.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'LongTimeLurker'

LongTimeLurker | November 6, 2009 at 11:04 a.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

Larry Sinclair is incapable of the truth. Anyone giving him any credibility is a fool.

He called the house of President Obama's grandmother to harrass her as she lay dying.

He made a video urging the President's daughters to read Sinclair's own pornography.

He admits and even brags about his compulsion to swallow the semen of strange men.

All of the above is well documented.

For Sinclair, telling the truth about anything is boring. Deception and falsehood are the substance of his soul.

He is evil. His name is "Legion".

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'ZeN'

ZeN | November 6, 2009 at 11:07 a.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

Wells... you complete imbecile. So since Obama hasn't sued Sinclair proves Sinclair's story true? What else have you got?
Anything? Anything at all?? (I didn't think so.) Know why?
Because there isn't anything. Because it NEVER HAPPENED.

Sinclair is a liar, proven time and time again and you still insist to believe him. What is it that you hate about Obama so much that drives this willingness to latch onto ANYTHING negative about him? You're some patriot, Wells.

I think that "he never sued so it must be true" defense just proves that this is all about trying to get Obama to sue somebody. "look at me ... look how important I am". He never had Sinclair killed either so by your logic how does the Donald Young lie add-on to Sinclair's story hold water??

I think the world knew when Sinclair failed the lie detector test with flying colors what his allegations were worth. Sinclair is a career criminal and complete nutcase with zero credibility and his only purpose on this earth at this point is to be made fun of. That's his contribution to society now.

citizenwells // yesterday at 12:41 p.m. ― 22 hours, 10 minutes ago
"The no brainer statement is that Obama has not sued Sinclair.
For that matter, I have long hoped for Obama to sue me for my coverage of the story."

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'bridge75'

bridge75 | November 6, 2009 at 11:11 a.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

Larry Sinclair is the worst kind of human being, someone who will feed off of others bigotry and fear and use it for his own personal gain. He is nothing more than a "Con Man" looking for his next "Mark" He makes up a story about our President knowing his allegations will never be verified, continues to spread his hateful message and cries when someone calls him out or confronts him on presenting evidence.

Hey Larry, the next time you accuse someone of bullying and spreading lies you may want to look in the mirror!! The President isn't afraid of you or your allegations, he just has better things to do like run our Country! Its called ignoring the crazy guy who's fifteen minutes were up a year ago. Take a hint and go away!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Kstreet67'

Kstreet67 | November 6, 2009 at 11:17 a.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

A telling indication of Sinclair's intimidation tactics is to always post people's full names and locations on the web and in his books. He really hopes that one of his supporters might find one of these people and perhaps do some harm to them. After all, what is the purpose of putting someone's name and location (and sometimes complete addresses) out there, just because that person disagrees with his statements?

He and his cohorts have threatened to burn on dissenter's house to the ground and actually put out her complete address with a photoshopped picture of her home burning. That is the mentality of Sinclair and his fellow bottom dwellers.

He is dangerous, vindictive and thinks that everything that MENTIONS his name is all about him. Forget that the above piece actually focuses on libel and public figures, he is so narcissistic that he believes that everything written about him that does not fawn over him like his lemmings write (see then its an all out war against that person or persons.

By the way, the three most aggregious things Sinclair has done was:

1. Call on his (P)sychophants to email Malia and Sasha Obama and tell them about their father's alleged "affair" with him. (I will research hisstatement and post it here when i find it.)

2. He actually phoned Mrs. Dunham, Obama's grandmother, when she was on her deathbed. He spoke to Maya and posted the recording of that conversation on his You Tube account.

3. Most recently he made a You Tube video where he fantasizes telling Malia and Sasha Obama about his alleged encounter with their father.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'ostinato'

ostinato | November 6, 2009 at 11:20 a.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

I'm not sure why KPBS scheduled and aired this segment. It merely gave publicity to a crackpot and discussed a controversial topic, not because it is relevant to any mainstream issue, but apparently just because it is controversial, primarily to fringe elements.

The poor analysis and low quality of comments that have ensued are logically the only result that could have occurred. These kind of stories had better not become a habit for KPBS. A total waste of time and resources.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'joeymac'

joeymac | November 6, 2009 at 11:32 a.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

Larry Sinclair is a lifetime grifter/scammer who steals credits cards, writes worthless checks to indigent people, passes counterfeit money orders, uses multiple tax-ids to scam SSI benefits and defraud medicaid, all of which indicates that he is a pathological and shameless liar.

At the beginning of this thread, is a comment of Mr. Larry "Citizen Wells" Wells of Greensboro, NC, who--in his own mind--is "well educated" and of a "strong background."(????)

Mr. Wells is so well educated that he searches for Bigfoot, and--I think--claims some contact with him. I sure his "research" of Sinclair's fantasy of is as painstaking as his quest for the elusive (and, perhaps, illusive) monster.

Mr. Wells operates a blog that is a repository of sociopathic hatred of President Obama, so it is no mystery why he promotes any sort of lie that he hopes will de-legitimize the President. He, and his blog denizens, are adamant proponents of the ridiculous lie that the President is not a citizen. Abject hatred makes odd bedfellows.

Sinclair claims conversations with Donald Young on the internet and in his "book." But, alas, assertions in those media carry no threat of criminal prosecution for making false statements. However, in an affidavit to the Chicago Police Department, he makes no such assertions; to do so would place him in jeopardy of perjury prosecution, if perusal of telephone records indicate that Donald Young made no calls to any number that Sinclair claims. Sinclair, a thrice-convicted felon and career criminal, is wise to all the tricks of avoiding legal liability.

Again, in his "book," Sinclair claims that President is uncircumscised, and, when pressed, he avers so on the internet. But, when he had the opportunity to testify under oath in Barnett vs. Obama, in California, he punked out and fled when he learned that he would be asked about the alleged encounter. He didn't want to testify on something that could be disproven and make him liable for a perjury charge.

Sinclair penned his libelous screed, it has come to light that President was born in Kapiolani Hospital, which makes it nearly a certainty, that he IS circumscised, since it was the common practice of hospitals at that time. It seems that Sinclair was the victim of disinfomation; it set him up beautifully.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'joeymac'

joeymac | November 6, 2009 at 11:45 a.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

Sinclair's constant mantra about people that debunk him is they "haven't read the book." That reminds me of the time when some were objecting to the Vietnam War, the ultimate comeback from the pro-war proponents was that the anti-way proponents "haven't been to Vietnam" and therefore, by implication, were unable to make a valid judgment concerning the matter.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Zoey'

Zoey | November 6, 2009 at 12:03 p.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

What about the time that he harassed that poor Grandma from Georgia because she disagreed with him! He paraded around in pantie's with her face on his ass and photographed it several pictures of himself! Put it on here blog and threatened to destroy her.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Kstreet67'

Kstreet67 | November 6, 2009 at 12:26 p.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

I mentioned that I would submit proof about Sinclair suggesting that his (P)sychophants email Malia and Sasha Obama telling them about his alleged sexual and drug encounter with their father. Here is the text and the reference info.

"Now the NYT's feels it is important to address the drug use of persons not even

running for office and to attempt to gain information from underage children."

*(He's talking about the NYT contacting Megan McCain and asking her a


"Why doesn't someone email Obama's daughters and start asking them what they

think of their father using crack cocaine and engaging in gay sex with other

men while the oldest child was at home with her mom? Maybe the NYT's will ask

Michelle Obama how it feels to know that she lost out to another man rather

than another woman?"

From "Larry Sinclair/Barack Obama" Monday October 20, 2008 Posted: 3:43 p.m.

The blog is now defunct but the URL was:

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'LarrySinclair'

LarrySinclair | November 6, 2009 at 12:32 p.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

As I have stated earlier, all of Ms. Bryants "cesspool" associates have come to KPBS and started posting their same old tired attacks and lies. Ms. Bryant fails to admit her part in posting peoples names, addresses, phone numbers and even participating in the posting of comments telling senior citizens they will be paid visits by a black truck.

Ms. Bryant continues to make the totally false claim that I asked people to email Barack Obama's daughters. She does not know how to quote anyone that she has devoted two years of her life attacking.

As demonstrated by the comments posted here, with the false claims that I use multiple Tax ID numbers, etc...etc... they have demonstrated my point about Gloria Penner using comments posted by these very people in her statements. In fact it is Joeymac, Sheila Bryant, and their Piano Fraud leader Scott Covington who posted the comment Ms. Penner repeated about me having a "27 year criminal history with a speciality in crimes of deceit."

Thanks folks, you just proved my point.

The sites mentioned in my earlier post clearly demonstrate Ms. Bryants claim of simply disagreeing with someone a joke.

Have a wonderful day, and weekend San Diego, because these people are going to smell up this site for days.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'LarrySinclair'

LarrySinclair | November 6, 2009 at 12:51 p.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

Sheila Bryant, you have just shown how much of a LIAR you are. No one threatened to burn any one's house down and the only photo-shopped photo of a house burning was the photo-shopped picture of MY home engulfed in flames that you though was "great", how soon you forget.

It is so funny to read the crap you and Lynne/Zen & Co post. You people are a joke, you claim all these things yet they are the very things each of you have engaged in non-stop as you yourself admit above.

You people continue to claim I am a LIAR but you have not been able to do anything but call me a LIAR, you have yet to prove a single lie. What is so funny is that I contacted KPBS over the "journalists" using exact comment posted by your little group and not being professional enough to actually read something that they went on air and called "defamatory". Posting your name Sheila is not an attempt to intimidate at all, its to simply confront your lies and criminal activity by name. You people are scared to death to become known to the point of registering the cess-pool via a proxy scam.

You people have not been about truth and all your posts and comments are due out in a new book in Feb 2010 that will show the world your little attack machine and "crying wolf."

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'joeymac'

joeymac | November 6, 2009 at 12:52 p.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

Larry Sinclair, are you currently under investigation for medicaid/SSI fraud? How does a criminal with an outstanding warrant qualify for SSI/medicaid without using another ID? On the SS website, it clearly states that persons with outstanding warrants are ineligible.

How does a "best-selling author" and CEO of a publishing empire qualify for welfare (SSI)?

You scored, by your own words, $30,000 for failing a lie-detector test in 2008. You had access and constructive use of $ten of thousands more from a bevy of paypal accounts in 2008, while living in subsidized housing and collecting (by your own admission) SSI benefits; how did you manage that without gaming the system by using multiple SS#s? It seems that Orly Taitz is investigating the wrong target.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'LarrySinclair'

LarrySinclair | November 6, 2009 at 1:01 p.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

Sheila, the NYT's did not contact Megan McCain, but had contacted a facebook friend (a minor) of Cindy McCains 15 year old daughter, and I will tell you again, just like was made clear on the original post, The question was NOT telling people to email Obama's daughters, but was a rhetorical question. You continue to rewrite to fit your argument, and that is why you people have failed at your efforts, because you do not know how to quote me or you insist on telling it the way you want it to sound.

Lets not forget your vulgar, racist, threat to drive to Duluth and kick my %^&* Fa*%^T a&^"

You and your little internet stalking group continue to re-write things and try to say what someone you have never met means, thinks, or is.... You are a joke.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'LarrySinclair'

LarrySinclair | November 6, 2009 at 1:08 p.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

JoeyMac, you continue to make these claims when in fact I am not under investigation for any such thing. I provide SSA with everything required by Law, and you are not entitled to any of that info and it continues to piss you off that you have been screaming this garbage for almost two years and its all just that garbage!

Have a nice life.

You apparently do not have access to as much as you claim you do, I will keep you guessing, but I still use the same SS# that you liars and frauds have used to illegally pull credit reports through businesses run by members of your group, and it is the same SS# I have had from the day it was assigned to me. When are you idiots going to get tired of posting these outright lies while calling someone else a liar????????????

Joke, Joke, Joke.

Good bye, I have a dinner date on a boat.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'joeymac'

joeymac | November 6, 2009 at 1:22 p.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

Larry Sinclair sez:

"You people continue to claim I am a LIAR but you have not been able to do anything but call me a LIAR, you have yet to prove a single lie."

How about:
(1) Barack Obama is uncut.
(2) You were going to get your telephone records to prove contact with Donald Young. Then, you lied and said that they were unavailable to you.
(3) You lied and said that you couldn't get YOUR credit card records to prove your expenditures in Chicago. A lie, because THE CREDIT CARD WASN'T YOURS. And, its my understanding, the usage was unauthorized.
(4)You lied about the alleged limo driver's name--changing it several times.
(5) In an interview with shock jocks, Opie and Anthony, in 2008, you claimed that you couldn't reveal whether or not BO was circumscised, because you were contractualy prevented, because you were going to reveal it in another imminent interview. Fact is, you didn't state it until many months later after you solicited members of Barack Obama's health club to provide the information to you. Except that the person that supplied it punked you.
(6) In 2008, you constantly claimed that you were truthful about your past, but you never revealed outstanding warrants in CO, FL and DE; other people had to uncover them.
(7) You claimed that you never used any aliases, but records indicate that you used at least 14 different ones. You say that they were legal names for you: granted, so why were you using them except to practice deception.

This is getting boring.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'joeymac'

joeymac | November 6, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

Sinclair sez:

" I provide SSA with everything required by Law, ..."

How does a wanted criminal qualify for SSI benefits, against its published rules?

How does one qualify for subsidized housing and SSI while taking in EXCESS of $60,000 in a calendar year?

Who was the beneficiary of your "stock sales" in your sham corporation? Doesn't that income disqualify you for SSI/medicaid. Who is the beneficiary of your book sales? Is that income enough to disqualify you for benefits?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Nathan Gibbs'

Nathan Gibbs | November 6, 2009 at 1:34 p.m. ― 7 years, 4 months ago

I've disabled comments for this post. The discussion isn't following the our Terms of Service ( regarding civil conversation. We appreciate your passion for the topic, but we don't tolerate insults and personal attacks.

Also, an editor's note was also added at the top of this page to clarify the source of some of the controversial information.

( | suggest removal )