Should Fox News Parade Larry Sinclair Obama's gay lover because MSM Paraded Stormy Daniels????

Let's reiterate what Larry Sinclair claims, that he hopped in a limo, asked the driver where to party and the driver just hooks him up with a state senator. Does this sound believable to anyone?
Maybe if a state senator were in a limo and asked the driver where to gay party and the driver knew Sinclair it could be believable, but not like this.

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
Let's reiterate what Larry Sinclair claims, that he hopped in a limo, asked the driver where to party and the driver just hooks him up with a state senator. Does this sound believable to anyone?
Maybe if a state senator were in a limo and asked the driver where to gay party and the driver knew Sinclair it could be believable, but not like this.

Ok, you don't believe him even though Obama never denied Larry's claims.

Are you saying that because you think he was lying, it was proper that he was arrested while talking to the media, at his press conference, on a bogus warrant issued out of Beau Biden's AG office, in Delaware, and incarcerated in violation of his Constitutional protections based on false charges of not paying a hotel bill that were later dropped entirely?

Because that is NOT how defamation/slander/libel is handled in the US...not since before the First Amendment was enacted.

The abuse of power it took to retaliate so seriously against Larry Sinclair is all the proof I need to believe that Larry is telling the truth...and even if he wasn't, I believe the retaliation he faced is one of the biggest political scandals in U.S. history.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

A president doesn't have to deny every single claim made against them.

Sinclair already admitted he had a warrant out for his arrest at the beginning of the talk, so no it doesn't seem crazy to me.

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
a reply to: MotherMayEye

A president doesn't have to deny every single claim made against them.

Sinclair already admitted he had a warrant out for his arrest at the beginning of the talk, so no it doesn't seem crazy to me.

He didn't have a warrant for his arrest in Delaware and all the charges were dropped.

ETA: And he always maintained he had never even been to Delaware. The dropping of all charges supports his claims.

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
a reply to: MotherMayEye

A president doesn't have to deny every single claim made against them.

Actually, he does for you to even attempt to deny them.

Otherwise, you have no reason to deny them.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

At the time of the arrest charges were not dropped and he was picked up on a federal warrant for being a fugitive in violation of the Colorado warrant

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
a reply to: MotherMayEye

A president doesn't have to deny every single claim made against them.

Actually, he does for you to even attempt to deny them.

Otherwise, you have no reason to deny them.

This is so ridiculous it's not worth my time responding to but I will. The truth of a matter is not contingent upon the accused claims of that truth, basic stuff.

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
a reply to: MotherMayEye

At the time of the arrest charges were not dropped and he was picked up on a federal warrant for being a fugitive in violation of the Colorado warrant

Nope. He was arrested on a warrant out of Delaware.

Politico didn't report the truth.

The warrant was issued out of Delaware.

You fell for the media's lies, smearing of Larry, and their covering up for Obama.

Link

That should give you pause in your further pursuits of accurate news, but will it?

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
a reply to: MotherMayEye

A president doesn't have to deny every single claim made against them.

Actually, he does for you to even attempt to deny them.

Otherwise, you have no reason to deny them.

This is so ridiculous it's not worth my time responding to but I will. The truth of a matter is not contingent upon the accused claims of that truth, basic stuff.

Actually, if Larry's claims were actionable, in Court, and Obama did not respond to them, then Larry would win by default.

You just seem to believe that Obama should never have been asked to respond to them by even the media. But, that's the topic of this thread...

...YES, if Trump is expected to answer to Stormy's claims...then certainly Obama should be expected to answer to Larry's. After all, Larry went to jail on false charges for simply speaking with the press.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Ok, so in addition to Colorado, Arizona and Florida (was one other can't remember), he had a Delaware warrant he didn't disclose or wasn't aware of. Is this surprising for a cross country fraudster? Nope.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
a reply to: MotherMayEye

A president doesn't have to deny every single claim made against them.

Actually, he does for you to even attempt to deny them.

Otherwise, you have no reason to deny them.

This is so ridiculous it's not worth my time responding to but I will. The truth of a matter is not contingent upon the accused claims of that truth, basic stuff.

Actually, if Larry's claims were actionable, in Court, and Obama did not respond to them, then Larry would win by default.

You just seem to believe that Obama should never have been asked to respond to them by even the media. But, that's the topic of this thread...

...YES, if Trump is expected to answer to Stormy's claims...then certainly Obama should be expected to answer to Larry's. After all, Larry went to jail on false charges for simply speaking with the press.

Did Sinclair take Obama to court? No he doesn't have to answer. I can give you 160 thousand reasons why the case is different to Trump's

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Ok, so in addition to Colorado, Arizona and Florida (was one other can't remember), he had a Delaware warrant he didn't disclose or wasn't aware of. Is this surprising for a cross country fraudster? Nope.

No. The charges were dropped. The warrant came from Beau Biden's office. The charges were bogus and therefore the warrant was bogus.

Larry said he had never been to Delaware and there was never any evidence to support the warrant claiming he has been to Delaware.

I hope one day you are arrested and held in jail on bogus charges and when/if they are dropped, people still claim you must be guilty of something.

You deserve that. A lot.

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
a reply to: MotherMayEye

A president doesn't have to deny every single claim made against them.

Actually, he does for you to even attempt to deny them.

Otherwise, you have no reason to deny them.

This is so ridiculous it's not worth my time responding to but I will. The truth of a matter is not contingent upon the accused claims of that truth, basic stuff.

Actually, if Larry's claims were actionable, in Court, and Obama did not respond to them, then Larry would win by default.

You just seem to believe that Obama should never have been asked to respond to them by even the media. But, that's the topic of this thread...

...YES, if Trump is expected to answer to Stormy's claims...then certainly Obama should be expected to answer to Larry's. After all, Larry went to jail on false charges for simply speaking with the press.

Did Sinclair take Obama to court? No he doesn't have to answer. I can give you 160 thousand reasons why the case is different to Trump's

No. Because Obama never denied Larry's claims.

So why should you? Were you with Obama that weekend in 1999?

Larry is different from Stormy because so many of Larry's Constitutional protections were violated in one of the grossest abuses of power in U.S. history.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Ok, so in addition to Colorado, Arizona and Florida (was one other can't remember), he had a Delaware warrant he didn't disclose or wasn't aware of. Is this surprising for a cross country fraudster? Nope.

You deserve that. A lot.

lol

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
a reply to: MotherMayEye

A president doesn't have to deny every single claim made against them.

Actually, he does for you to even attempt to deny them.

Otherwise, you have no reason to deny them.

This is so ridiculous it's not worth my time responding to but I will. The truth of a matter is not contingent upon the accused claims of that truth, basic stuff.

Actually, if Larry's claims were actionable, in Court, and Obama did not respond to them, then Larry would win by default.

You just seem to believe that Obama should never have been asked to respond to them by even the media. But, that's the topic of this thread...

...YES, if Trump is expected to answer to Stormy's claims...then certainly Obama should be expected to answer to Larry's. After all, Larry went to jail on false charges for simply speaking with the press.

Did Sinclair take Obama to court?

It is amazing the number of numbnuts that think forcing someone to answer whether they had sex with a person is actionable in court.

The press either asks, like with Trump, or doesn't, like with Obama. That's about all we have to work with in this country and it's plain the press is not consistent and arbitrarily asks for answers on the record.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
a reply to: MotherMayEye

A president doesn't have to deny every single claim made against them.

Actually, he does for you to even attempt to deny them.

Otherwise, you have no reason to deny them.

This is so ridiculous it's not worth my time responding to but I will. The truth of a matter is not contingent upon the accused claims of that truth, basic stuff.

Actually, if Larry's claims were actionable, in Court, and Obama did not respond to them, then Larry would win by default.

You just seem to believe that Obama should never have been asked to respond to them by even the media. But, that's the topic of this thread...

...YES, if Trump is expected to answer to Stormy's claims...then certainly Obama should be expected to answer to Larry's. After all, Larry went to jail on false charges for simply speaking with the press.

Did Sinclair take Obama to court? No he doesn't have to answer. I can give you 160 thousand reasons why the case is different to Trump's

No. Because Obama never denied Larry's claims.

So why should you? Were you with Obama that weekend in 1999?

So if I claim I know Trump likes to cover himself in melted marshmallows while hookers jump on him to see if they can stick like it's flypaper, literally no one here can argue about it because Trump hasn't denied it?
We've been over this already and your logic was lacking.

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Ok, so in addition to Colorado, Arizona and Florida (was one other can't remember), he had a Delaware warrant he didn't disclose or wasn't aware of. Is this surprising for a cross country fraudster? Nope.

You deserve that. A lot.

lol

More like, *wicked cackle.*

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
a reply to: MotherMayEye

A president doesn't have to deny every single claim made against them.

Actually, he does for you to even attempt to deny them.

Otherwise, you have no reason to deny them.

This is so ridiculous it's not worth my time responding to but I will. The truth of a matter is not contingent upon the accused claims of that truth, basic stuff.

Actually, if Larry's claims were actionable, in Court, and Obama did not respond to them, then Larry would win by default.

You just seem to believe that Obama should never have been asked to respond to them by even the media. But, that's the topic of this thread...

...YES, if Trump is expected to answer to Stormy's claims...then certainly Obama should be expected to answer to Larry's. After all, Larry went to jail on false charges for simply speaking with the press.

Did Sinclair take Obama to court?

It is amazing the number of numbnuts that think forcing someone to answer whether they had sex with a person is actionable in court.

The press either asks, like with Trump, or doesn't, like with Obama. That's about all we have to work with in this country and it's plain the press is not consistent and arbitrarily asks for answers on the record.

Alleging coc aine and crack use is actionable in court, ask Marion Barry. And like I said, there's 160,000 reasons the case is different, no matter how much you whine

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
a reply to: MotherMayEye

A president doesn't have to deny every single claim made against them.

Actually, he does for you to even attempt to deny them.

Otherwise, you have no reason to deny them.

This is so ridiculous it's not worth my time responding to but I will. The truth of a matter is not contingent upon the accused claims of that truth, basic stuff.

Actually, if Larry's claims were actionable, in Court, and Obama did not respond to them, then Larry would win by default.

You just seem to believe that Obama should never have been asked to respond to them by even the media. But, that's the topic of this thread...

...YES, if Trump is expected to answer to Stormy's claims...then certainly Obama should be expected to answer to Larry's. After all, Larry went to jail on false charges for simply speaking with the press.

Did Sinclair take Obama to court? No he doesn't have to answer. I can give you 160 thousand reasons why the case is different to Trump's

No. Because Obama never denied Larry's claims.

So why should you? Were you with Obama that weekend in 1999?

So if I claim I know Trump likes to cover himself in melted marshmallows while hookers jump on him to see if they can stick like it's flypaper, literally no one here can argue about it because Trump hasn't denied it?
We've been over this already and your logic was lacking.

No, yours is lacking.

If you claim the above and try to speak with the press BUT you are thrown in jail on a bogus warrant out of Mike Pence's child's AG office, AND Trump is never asked about any of it and never denies your claims...

...yeah, I reserve the right to weigh the circumstantial evidence in favor of your claims and I would.

That kind of retaliation speaks to consciousness of guilt.

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
a reply to: MotherMayEye

A president doesn't have to deny every single claim made against them.

Actually, he does for you to even attempt to deny them.

Otherwise, you have no reason to deny them.

This is so ridiculous it's not worth my time responding to but I will. The truth of a matter is not contingent upon the accused claims of that truth, basic stuff.

Actually, if Larry's claims were actionable, in Court, and Obama did not respond to them, then Larry would win by default.

You just seem to believe that Obama should never have been asked to respond to them by even the media. But, that's the topic of this thread...

...YES, if Trump is expected to answer to Stormy's claims...then certainly Obama should be expected to answer to Larry's. After all, Larry went to jail on false charges for simply speaking with the press.

Did Sinclair take Obama to court?

It is amazing the number of numbnuts that think forcing someone to answer whether they had sex with a person is actionable in court.

The press either asks, like with Trump, or doesn't, like with Obama. That's about all we have to work with in this country and it's plain the press is not consistent and arbitrarily asks for answers on the record.

Alleging coc aine and crack use is actionable in court...

And yet Obama never denied it and never filed any civil action for defamation/slander/libel.

Larry even wrote a book with those claims. Obama knows that many people believe Larry. I DO!!! I think Obama had Larry thrown in jail to shut him up about the BJs and the drugs Obama's dealer furnished.

Unless Obama denies Larry's claims...I 100% believe Larry and apparently that is ok with Obama.