Good Lord, man, would you not call the name of the Limo driver and the phone numbers presented as evidence? Have they been checked out or not? If not, why not? Just what is your definition of “evidence” anyway?

Well Joe,

Feel free to play detective.

Sinclair claimed P. Multani was the limo driver right after he released the Youtube video. Then he retracted it… said this wasn’t the name of the guy. Then he had his “press conference” where he said that this was the first time he was “releasing” the name of the limo driver.

So which statement from Sinclair do you believe?

Sinclair claims he talked to Donald Young. And gave everyone “his” phone numbers to prove it. He did not release any
of the so-called text messages from “Young”.

Sinclair claims he was living in Texas at one point when “Young” contacted him. Sinclair was arrested on a warrant from Delaware immediately following the press conference. The charge from Delaware indicates he was in that state during the time frame he was supposed to be in Texas.

Feel free to contact the limo driver, Joe. Sinclair promised to have a signed affidavit months ago. Never materialized. You’d think if Sinclair really wanted to present his “evidence” after five months of posturing he’d have had that limo driver at the press conference front and center.

Good Lord, man, would you not call the name of the Limo driver and the phone numbers presented as evidence? Have they been checked out or not? If not, why not? Just what is your definition of “evidence” anyway?

Thanks!

You know, when you’re rushing against a deadline, sometimes those things get by!!

Thanks a million!

None of his shocking and blunt “facts” are presented for us to judge ?

Sinclair’s handouts at the press conference is going to go up later today. You did well to put “facts” in quotes. We feel nothing new was presented. In fact, the information that Larry handed out yesterday–as is the case with most things Sinclair–directly contradicted statements he has previously made in other interviews.

Although we will present Sinclair’s handouts and document his previous statements, we hold out little hope that that information will change the True Believers in Sinclair. It’s enough to make us revise our belief that, in Ann Coulter’s words, “Liberals don’t read.”

Neither do some conservatives. Bringing down Obama has obsessed some people to the point that any information that gets in the way of their mindset comes from “the enemy”. Even though we’ve published roughly 54 articles which could be classified as “unfriendly to Obama”–and not one pro-Obama story–we were branded “Obamabots” by Sinclair. It was the label he used for anyone who didn’t agree with him and his Eternal Larry Telethon–even though, in Sinclair’s case, he knew that we’d defended him at first.

Oh well, that’s the price of education, I suppose.

In order to determine the veracity of this mans claims you need to ask WHY is he doing this? If the media cannot find a quid pro quo then this story will grow.

We corresponded with Sinclair from the beginning of his claims. We posted 11 pro-Sinclair stories in the beginning. However, from the beginning, we asked (begged?) for any evidence to back up any of his claims. That was the end of Larry Sinclair trying to “get his story out” via this conduit.

Almost from the time Sinclair released his YouTube video, he began hitting up people who responded to his video for money. Literally, hundreds of pleas for money at various sites he posted on or commented on.

That, IMO is WHY he is doing this. Anyone who’s followed Sinclair’s trail for the last (almost) 5 months–and is not seduced by the promise of an “easy out” against Obama might reach the same conclusion we did: Sinclair might be telling the truth, but the more you delve into it trying to confirm it, the more that is dug up which leads you to directly the opposite conclusion.

In the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter affair, we came to another, altogether different conclusion: we were initially skeptical and the more we dug, the more we realized that the chain of “coincidences” in that story was extraordinary.

The Larry Sinclair episode will be used by the Left and the MSM as a club to beat Republicans over the head for using dirty tricks. The only dirty trick is that more members of the right-wing blogosphere didn’t take the time to check out Sinclair’s story instead of taking a career conman at his word.

Still, it’s been somewhat entertaining.

Thanks for taking the time to stop by and comment.

Dems are probably going to lose control of Congress in 2010 , BO will probably end up as Jimmy Carter , who started with the wind at his back from GOP failures and yet lost it all by the end of his one and only term.