vector art

Fake!
WashPo Editorial Non-Existent



We got an email this morning that claimed to contain the text from a Washington Post story on Thursday, February 21 2008 about Larry Sinclair, the gay man who's polygraph test about his claims of sharing sex and cocaine with Barack Obama in 1999 will be released this week.

Sinclair has alleged that he shared gay sex and cocaine/crack with Obama in the back of a limo and at a motor lodge in Gurnee, IL in 1999 while the presidential candidate was a Illinois representative.

The story-editorial, according to the email, was dated February 21, 2008 and was to have been on WashPo page 1a2.

Here's what the email said the story contained.

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 "black male" 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."

Now, the email said that this was an editorial from the Washington Post.

We found that hard to believe for a number of reasons.

1- Why would the Washington Post write an editorial about a story that the Post has steadfastly refused to utter a word about?

2- The email doesn't read like much of an editorial to us. It reads more like someone trying to write a fake news story.

3- Some of the information contained in the email matched the same information we tried running down that appeared in this week's Globe tabloid concerning Larry Sinclair's prison record. We were unable to substantiate it, as of this time.

4- Some of the email's information was completely new: that is, the charge that Sinclair was involved in "black male" charges. "Black male"? This alone caused us to relegate the email to the scam/spam collection.

5- The information that we do know is true: i.e., the charges Sinclair has alleged, comes almost word-for-word from one of our Larry Sinclair stories here at DBKP.

Now, we'd be flattered if some editorial writer lifted a few sentences from our story, but we doubt very much that most editorial staff at the Washington Post (Kevin Sullivan--who's left a comment at DBKP a few months back--being the exception.)

So, we checked the email out.

We ran searches on the Washington Posts website: no editorial concerning Larry Sinclair.

We went through every editorial published by the Washington Post in the last 2 weeks.

Nope, no such animal.

Who is circulating the email with the fake Washington Post editorial?

Is it the Obama campaign? Or, perhaps just an over-zealous Obama supporter?

We can't imagine a Clinton or McCain supporter circulating the email. The email made its way to the editor at BNN also, where DBKP Obama-Sinclair stories have been posted.

In any case, Larry Sinclair has made his allegations publicly, and has been threatened for his troubles by Obama supporters and the campaign itself--according to Sinclair.

This letter--unless the editorial has been pulled, and that raises a whole other set of questions--is more evidence that tends to support Sinclair's allegations of intimidation by Obama supporters.

The plot thickens.

[NOTE: The email presented no links or other proof that this editorial exists and we can find no proof it exists, either. If anyone has a link to this supposed Washington Post editorial, send it along and we'll post it. But we don't expect to receive a link for a non-existant editorial using the term "black male" charges.]

DBKP Political Scandal Library Over 40 DBKP stories and videos on scandals involving the 2008 presidential candidates. Included are stories about Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain and Barack Obama.

by Mondoreb
image: file
Source: email



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Pravda's pissed.

The Russian newspaper, once eagerly read by the CIA for hints about the USSR's Communist leadership, sent the junior senator from New York twelve questions.

They never received any answers.

In fact, they still haven't received a dah or nyet.

The paper was so peeved it published an editorial a several weeks ago taking Hillary Clinton to task for not even responding to their request a few years back for some answers.

Two years ago, the office of Senator Hillary Clinton was contacted with a polite message requesting an interview. A standard anonymous answer followed. Despite repeated contacts during the election campaign, not even a message of recognition was received, contrary to all the other political parties in the USA, including the office of Vice President Richard (Dick) Cheney. Here are the questions that Hillary Clinton did not answer:

Even Dick Cheney!

Although the Russian newspaper started sending their queries a few years ago, they must have added to their list since then, as the last couple questions pertain to Barack Obama's campaign, which wasn't announced until little over a year ago.

What were the questions that Clinton didn't even acknowledge?

Pravda published them on February 3 2008 along with a couple snide--some would say accurate--observations.

Here they are:

The Twelve Questions Hillary Clinton won't Answer 1. Senator Clinton, is it true that you insinuated President Putin does not have a soul? 2. You have said you wish to reform the US healthcare system. Could you please tell us how you plan to do this? 3. Why should you succeed where others have failed? 4. How would you comment on your statement that being a Republican and a Christian are difficult to conciliate? 5. Is it true that you have the support of the Jewish Lobby? If so, how will this influence your foreign policy? Will it continue to be controlled by Israel? 6. What is your message to the average American voter? How would you propose to make his/her life better? 7. What are your plans for Iran? Do you stand for a war? 8. How would you improve America's standing in the international community? 9. Why did you support the war against Iraq? 10. What are the reasons for your having fallen for the lies which were launched against Saddam Hussein? 11. Why does your Candidate website not have an email for the Press, whereas that of Senator Obama has? Would you agree this is a comment on the professionalism or the arrogance of your campaign? 12. Did you hope to gain an advantage over your opponent by announcing your trip to Florida and your support for the seating of Florida delegates just prior to the Florida primary?

After listing the above questions in their editorial, Pravda then followed them with a few obsevations.

The absense of an answer, on a systematic basis, can mean one or all of a number of things: Senator Clinton cannot answer these questions, does not want to answer these questions because she cannot find a credible enough reply, could not care less about the international press (in which case, what a fine candidate for a US President at a time when the USA needs to build bridges) or worse still, never received the messages in the first place, which would indicate a tremendous and shocking degree of lack of professionalism. If she cannot handle a website, how can she be expected to govern a nation of 300 million people?

The reader can decide for himself the wording or validity of Pravda's questions, especially those in #5.

However, more than a few Americans would agree with the conclusions they reached.

Pravda then fired a parting shot at Clinton's presidential campaign by noting that, "Indeed, for some reason Barack Obama’s website has a contact for the Press, whereas Senator Clinton’s has none."

Whatever one thinks of the questions that Clinton declined to decline to answer, one has to admit one thing.

They're tougher questions than anyone in the American MSM has asked the Democrat candidate to date.

Now Pravda knows how many American voters feel.

They've been trying to get some of those answers for years.

by Mondoreb
images:
* file
* RidesAPaleHorse
* journalism
Source: The Questions Hillary Clinton did not answer



Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.