Minnesota Man Claims He Took Drugs & Had Sex with Barack Obama in 1999

Barack Obama now faces a new challenge - one that is sure to be much more scandalous than anything he's seen so far. If the allegations are to be believed, it's also a scandal that his campaign has tried to cover up. A Minnesota man has come forth, claiming that he took cocaine in 1999 with Obama, the then-Illinois legislator, and participated in homosexual acts with him.

Larry Sinclair, the man making the claims, said his story was ignored by the news media. Still not willing to let this one slip quietly under the rug, Sinclair made a YouTube video in which he made his case. It's had over half a million views already, but the story has still been largely ignored by the news media.

Sinclair's next step was to file a suit in Minnesota District Court, in which he alleges threats and intimidation by the Democratic presidential candidate's staff.

Still out to prove that he is telling the truth, Sinclair said he is willing to submit to a polygraph test. A website (WhiteHouse.com) has come forth offering him $10,000 for the right to record the polygraph test, and another $100,000 if he passes it.

Sinclair lives in Duluth, Minnesota, and in his filing, charges that his civil rights have been violated by Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. Obama, David Axelrod of AKP Message & Media in Chicago, and the Democratic National Committee have been named as defendants in the case.

Sinclair, who describes himself as gay, claims they met in an upscale Chicago lounge. They left in Sinclair's limo, where the drug use and sex allegedly took place for the first time. Sinclair says that Obama smoked crack cocaine, and that he snorted powder cocaine provided by Obama.

Sinclair, 46, says that he no longer uses drugs. He claims to be physically disabled, but says that he was not physically impaired in 1999 when they met.

Regarding the claims, Sinclair said:

"My motivation for making this public is my desire for a presidential candidate to be honest. I didn't want the sex thing to come out. But I think it is important for the candidate to be honest about his drug use as late as 1999."

Check out Larry Sinclair's YouTube Videos and his claims against Barack Obama:

There are several other videos he made in response to the first video, and other's inquiries. Check those out here.


Wow, and I had a threesome with Angelina Jolie and Hillary Duff. Yeah we did it in the space shuttle right before they moved it out of the final assembly building. Laughable.

Lucky you man! I wish I would have been there!

If you have trouble understanding why this story is important, and why they published it - do this:

Try to imagine it was a republican instead of Obama.

If this were McCain, or Bush, you'd all magically be interested in hearing more.

Grow up people.

Story doesn't fly with reality. They rode around in Sinclair's limo, stayed at Sinclair's hotel room... It doesn't happen like this in the real world that the person without means provides the limo and the hotel but only crack (less expensive), inconsistant with class of limo and hotel room, to the person he's with. Distinguishing crack vs cocaine is a subliminal issue suggesting racial stereotyping with this story. Lastly, try clicking on the stories in this "newspaper article". Since when are articles written by only first names and usernames.
People, the evidence is in the article that this is fishy, to say the least. Please don't be so incredulous!! These are why it's being ignored. The Obama camp and the media are obviously not as easily duped!

Perhaps. But someone should be investigating this issue to the fullest, not dismissing it. The president of the united states in not a easy job, it's not like applying for position as a sushi chef.

I will be happy to tell more people about this website!

This isn't about bringing out the Supposedly "truth", because regardlesso f the point if he became Senator, or in any type political Office, this should have been News then.

This is simply about slanging the most nastiest, dirtest mud to GET WHAT ONE WANTS! Shame on those that THINK the truth should come out NOW, when this man has been in political office for a long time. why wait until now. As if ANYONE in POLITCAL office is pure, get out of here! I think it's shameful for others on the board to even jump on the bandwagon on this. WHY? Simple, because I am sure each and everyone of you have done something in your life that was pleasing whatsoever. I don't know if this is true or not, really don't care, this should be about there ability, to run a Country. So far, many are proving that they can't just by there childish ways they are conducting themselves.

Barack Obama states that he experimented with cocaine in his teens. If he had been a user from his teens until nine years ago that's over 20 years of cocaine use.

Let's round down to 20 years.

Now let's say around that time he discovered he was gay, or at least bi-sexual. That's another 20 years of homosexual relationships. Most of them probably one night stands. Or two nighters as Larry claims.

Now, lets say Barack used cocaine once a week - a very conservatice estimate if one knows anything about addiction.

That's 52 weeks times 20 years = that's 1040 times he used cocaine.

Now, lets say just 10% of the time he was using he engaged in the type of anonymous gay sex Sinclair alleges - another LOW estimate.

That's 104 times he did the same with others as he's alleged to do with Larry Sinclair.

Now let's say the Obama campaign got to 90% of these potential drug using/gay sex partners -paid off, threatened - whatever.

That leaves 10 Larry Sinclairs.

Where are the other nine?

What are they waiting for?

Even if you throw out my entire theory - numbers and all - if you believe the charges levels by Sinclair, it's highly unlikely that this was the one and only time Obama engaged in such activities. Where are the other drug\sex partners?

This story must be investigated and either debunked, or proven. I too have watched this develop since the posting of the YouTube video. I don't know if it's real, but I do know that Mr. Sinclair has filed a lawsuit against Sen. Obama and David Axelrod. That is on an official website. Leads me to believe there may be something to this. Seems the Obama campaign is just ignoring it and hoping it goes away. The public deserves to know the truth about a presidential candidate. Especially the front-runner of the Democratic Party.

Does Mr. Sinclair say what was playing on the radio in the limo when all this happend?

Was it Blink-182? Sex, Drugs and Rock and roll trifecta in play, Larry?

So, it's only ok if the media reports on Republicans who do gay sex, but if you want to talk about Democrats then it's "shame on you".

Hmm. Quite hypocritical. It seems that all the Dems were applauding the Larry Craig scandal, the Mark Foley scandal, the Ted Haggard scandal, but one of their own? Oh NO! HE'S NOT GAY, NOT A CRACK USER!


This could very well be true. There's loads of closeted people out there, and Obama could very well be one of them, it's NOT just Republicans.

Completely irresponsible.

Cleveland Leader should do some fact checking.

Just awful. And I'm a McCain supporter.

You can cheat on polygraphs, and if someone pays him $100k if he passes it, he will find a way to pass it.

A lawsuit is not news! ANYONE can file a lawsuit, anytime, anywhere, for any reason. It'll get dismissed before it sees the light of day. And the news media has better things to do that give some random dude any ink at all. He's trying to sell his story to the tabloids and get money, and that's what he'll do.

The respectable media will be staying out of it.

p.s. since when was the Cleveland LEader a "reputable" news organization? Good lord.

OK, we all know this story is untrue. We know it in our hearts and in our adorable little souls.

But why do we KNOW, deep down, that this Larry fella is downright CRAZY?

Look at 'im!!!

Why would Obama, who's widely considered to be a handsome guy and who wields money, power, and influence ... why would he bang someone this ugly? Come on! The guy's chubby, has a ridiculous red beard, and wears a NASCAR cap (or something equally as ugly).

Even if Obama is gay (and who cares, really?) he has the looks, power, and judgment to sleep with someone FAR more attractive.

I'm voting for Obama. You should too.

Larry Sinclair has a picture of how he looked in 1999 - he looks pretty good - check out Obama with his cigs in 1999.

why won't the rest of the media at least look into the allegations and expose this now and ASK Obama about it publicly? This is the reason why I can't imagine no one has put more emphasis on his drug-usage (youthful or not) as a huge weight against him -- his entire presidency will be plagued by people accusing him of everything and drawn-out investigations into those accusations by the Republicans.
And HOW- when Obama is asked where the substance behind his words is-- he repeats someone elses speech and everyone moves on?? I know in college they would flunk you for that kind of 'borrowing' without acknowledgement.
Isn't that the real fear at hand-- that his words are empty concepts?
I think again, maybe the reason why all this is swept under the carpet now is that it's the Republicans just hedging their bets -- blasting Clinton for being herself now, wanting Obama to get the nod - before coming out and blasting him before the elections. There has to be an intelligent reason why they are bashing Clinton in the news and just completely gushing over Obama.

I'm glad at least one newspaper has the courage to report what is going on in the world. This is news. The public has a right to hear what is going on. We shouldn't have to discover things on YouTube or blogs and force the newspapers to cover things.

By the way, I heard that Obama supporters were told to not answer questions regarding Obama's stand on issues when asked. Instead they were just supposed to say: "he spoke to me" or "he came to me." That sounds more like a cult to me than anything else.

I'm all for having a better public speaker after the embarrassment of George Bush, but I'm not looking for someone with only that to give.

It seems like people are hungry for inspiration in their lives. They want a hero. But is this the right place to throw caution to the wind?? Should we really put another inexperienced person in office -- that's what we did with George Bush (or rather the Republicans did) and look where that got us.

If Obama wins the dem nomination, I will be shifting my support to McCain, along with a lot of other democrats.

jesus. you people need to settle down.

the cleveland leader isn't a newspaper. it's a blog.

the real cleveland leader newspaper was disbanded in 1917.

settle down, and look it up.

I think people are so passionate on here because they feel Hillary Clinton has gotten a bad deal from the media which suppressed her campaign. And Barrack Obama got a free ride.

Which is fine with me, I'm a republican. But, I can understand peoples passions. As a woman, it's clear, Mrs. Clinton is being held to a higher rope to jump.

Polygraph tests, for judicial purposes, are considered to be junk science, as in inadmissible as evidence. Additionally, with a little training, most people could learn to pass one.

I listened to the "Rense" interview and found Sinclair to be more glib than on his Youtube video. But all this proves is that Sinclair knows how to lie over the radio. If you look at the video, his non-verbal gestures, such as repeated eye-blinking, indicate he may not be telling the truth. Additionally, he uses legalistic terms to distinguish between "powder" and "crack" cocaine, which suggests that he's trying to tart up his allegations to make them sound more credible.

People make all kinds of allegations towards political candidates and other public figures; generally with relative impunity given the defamation laws, as wells as the public figure's desire to not dignify spurious allegations.

I'm sure people are familiar with all of the allegations directed at the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration. Were all of them credible? Sure, the Lewinsky story was credible, as well as the Jeff Gannon story, but many of the others were not.

Let's assume this guy is completely lying. What should Obama do? Go and take a polygraph, which as already discussed, would prove nothing, since anyone can pass a polygraph? Should someone in Obama's position have to answer every last spurious allegation? Put yourself in Obama's position. What would you do?

I know that after elections were over, win or lose, I would probably sue this newspaper for libel. It would be well within the statute of limitations.

LOL. You got to be kidding me!!! This is a joke, right? This guy looks crazy as hell. Does he have any physical evidence to prove his claims (aka blue shirt) receipts, records from that night. Probably not! If so he would have produced them by now. Come on people wake up. I can't wait for the crew at SNL to spoof this guy. LOL.

I wonder if slander charges can be brought against the Leader for this unfactual story.

First of all slander is spoken, libel is written. The story is all "factual". The guy said he had sex and coke with Obama. That is what is being reported. Nowhere did it say its a fact. Just reporting on what this guy said and provided video that backed that claim up.

Now if Obama wanted to go after the guy who made the video, yes there would be a case as he, if the allegations are untrue, would have slandered Obama's name.

From the tip box:


“If you report a story about McCain and a non-confirmable affair that both he and the woman deny, and use anonymous sources, why are you ducking the story that has exploded on the internet relating to allegations by Larry Sinclair involving Barack Obama’s alleged cocaine use, infidelity, and lies.”

Wow - a muslim, pot and coke addict and a homosexual all in one - what are we in for

Has it crossed anyone's mind that maybe the mainstream media has looked into this, and they didn't find this guy credible? If there was even one shred of truth to this don't you think Clinton would be screaming it from the roof tops? Don't you think McCain would have piled on by now?

I can tell you for sure, all major media networks know about this story as do news papers, from as far back as last October. Obama's camo is aware of this story as well. I'm sure all parties investigated the issue. Some have found things, others have not. But, its a tricky story to managing, i.e. NYT story about John McCain. The story about John McCain has been working in the NYT for months as well. All media outlets have stories they investigate, hold on the back burner. Until the story becomes headline news. When one media break the story, all media outlets release thier investigated stories and pounce on the people related. Obama's camp has a well prepared public relation campaign to introduce to it base to fight off this scandal, as does John Mccain.

The very last thing the Clinton campaign would ever be "screaming from the roof tops" is something like this. It would hurt her campaign as much as Obama's, or anyone else. However, Obama's camp will spin the story to try an make the arguement to its followers: another campaign is behind this story. Or, whatever media sorce leak it, is trying to get back at them, anything reasoning. Obama PR people will toss one of hundred reasons out to the base, trying to make something stick, reflect away from the candidate. That's how the game is played.

Obama had better get use to this... Polictics is about the control/management of power, not about change. The more he becomes the front runner, the more media will start to investigate his background. The republican are not going to give up that easy!

This is what the rest of the MSM should be doing. Reporting the News! The Cleveland Leader is acting in a professional responsible manner.

Larry Sinclair filed this malicious lawsuit in an attempt to hurt Obama's shot at the nomination.

The address he used on his court filings is for an assisted living facility in Minnesota and is not his real address.

He has outstanding traffic tickets in Texas, and if you watch some of his other You-Tube video clips you'll notice some clues:
* the Mexican flag in the background
* the "everything's bigger in Texas" T-shirt he's wearing.
* the fact that he's running a fan in the room (on Feb 5th in Minnesota???).

Check out:

The Gateway Towers are two large apartment buildings. They host the asst. living facility, as well as low rent apartments. That is his home.


Shame on this "newspaper" for printing this garbage. If this person had a legitimate claim, he would have had a lawyer file his lawsuit. Listen to his story. If you research this idiot and read his other interviews and view his other videos, he says he himself was a drug dealer at the time that he met obama selling 1000-1500 lbs of weed a month and many kilos of coke. Okay---if your a dealer, you wouldn't need obama to run and get you some coke. you'd have your own. And hello...but what kind of idiot physically runs around town to get a complete stranger some dope much less when your a public official. A public official would have someone run the dope to him and his friends...he wouldn't be a servant to some stranger. That would have been the job of the limo driver if the story were true. Also, watch the video, you can clearly see he is reading his story. Nobody talks like that and if it happened to you, you wouldn't need to read it off cue cards.

That is what competent Journalists do. This shows that the Leader is good journalism! We need more journalists like this! They should be proud of their reporting!


...what CNN says in response after they investigate this claim. Thanks for getting through to them. The public has a right to know what is going on.

....CNN has had this story since last November. Like all the networks are sitting on the story. I wrote about this on one of blogs, it was never posted.

I had drinks last night with a casual friend of mine from the Washington Post. We were discussing the recently released John McCain story. I asked him was he aware of the Larry Sinclair claims. He confirmed, he was aware of the story, but the media was holding off, as they did McCain's, so not to effect the elections. According to him, the New York Times did not release the McCain story until after McCain closed the republican nomination.

He also informed me, the same thing was happening with this issue. The press will hold onto the story, until Barrack Obama (his words) secures the nomination. I asked him why Barrack Obama? I'm quoting here, "nobody want to see that hag (Clinton) in office for the next four years." "Even the hint of something like this may hurt him (Obama)." He went on to say, The Clinton was "old news", nothing new to report about. But with Barrack Obama, it's a new "scoop".

Now, I have no bone in the democratic race either way, I am a republican. I voted for Mitt Romney. However, if the news about McCain would have been exposed in December, as the media started. Then maybe this would have impacted McCain outcome, maybe not. Maybe it would have given voters a second chance to look at Romney or Huckabee.

This issue really has bothered me all day. I have sent an email to all the major networks (sure they do not care). Our conversation has made me view the press and media in a new light. Is the media effecting the outcome of the election??

Thank you for sharing your conversation. It confirms for me my suspicions regarding the media and this story. The only way this can be rectified is that we continue to blog about it and send emails about it until someone, like the New Republic did the NYT's, find it too difficult to continue to ignore. Hillary's camp has to know its out their too and perhaps will hold on until it is forced forward. Their fingerprints cannot be found on bringing it forward because the media would only turn on her instead of dealing with the issue. The only "hag" here is that misguided person to whom you were speaking.

Cleveland Leader is just another blog site. The real media hasn't reported it because real proof hasn't been presented. Hotel receipts? So what. Testimony of limo driver? Well that will depend on his credibility. Is limo driver an ex drug dealer as well? Is limo driver a legal citizen? I believe Novak is aware of this story and you can be sure if it met the standard he would have printed it.

Novak is an avid Hillary hater. So much so, he'd do anything to see Hillary humiliated by losing the nomination. That includes deliberately suppressing negative stories about Obama.

Novak knows about this for sure! he almost reported on this fact last november. but the networks held him off.



The more you attempt to debunk this story, the more others will think Obama's got something to hide.

LOL.... this is not proof! LOL.... this is that Murry guy who is stalking Sinclair... dope!

Murry, under serveral blog names at whitehouse.com, larry sinclair youtube channel, other blogs, repeatly slanders Mr. Sanclair, to the point its became stalking, Mr. Sinclair is worried about his safety. Step are being done to get law enforcement involvd. Note: Murry, has faslely claimed to be Mr. Sinclcairs bother, and other family members..

I think this guy was paid to come forth with this story. My question is Who and Why? Look at him, why would Obama pick up someone like this. A classless person that will seek 15 min. of fame.He looks as if he is still on drugs. And at the same time, a newspaper run this story without checking whether it is true or not. Shame on the Cleveland Leader for dropping at a new low.No one will ever take this paper serious again.

Folks should have a look at this, before they rush to believe the results of a polygraph test:

On 11 February, Mr. Sinclair filed, pro se, a federal lawsuit against Barack Obama, his campaign manager, and the Democratic National Committee in which he repeated his allegations but again offered nothing to substantiate them.

Then on 15 February, sometime Internet pornographer Dan Parisi, who runs the website WhiteHouse.com, made his own polygraph challenge to Mr. Sinclair, offering him $10,000 to submit to a lie detector test and an additional $90,000 if he passes. Two days later, Parisi reported that Sinclair had accepted his challenge, and on Monday, 18 February, Parisi announced that the “test” will be administered by a “renowned” but as-yet-unnamed polygraph examiner on Tuesday, 26 February 2008. Parisi promises, “Since the outcome of the test will be vital interest [sic] to the voting public, our findings will be made available before the presidential primaries in Texas and Ohio slated for March 4.”

Actually, the results of Mr. Sinclair’s polygraph examination will shed no light on the question of whether he has spoken the truth, and the voting public should attach no weight to the results. Polygraph “testing” has no scientific basis: it’s fundamentally dependent on trickery, inherently biased against the truthful, and yet easily passed by liars using simple countermeasures that polygraphers have no demonstrated ability to detect. See AntiPolygraph.org’s e-book The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (1 mb PDF) for a thorough debunking of polygraphy and details on how anyone can fool the lie detector.

While polygraph challenges may make for titillating political theater and publicity stunts, they are a poor substitute for honest investigation.



It seems like you are working for the Obama campaign. As an Ohioan, I want to know the truth or at least a response before I place my vote. Don't try to fool me with this crap.

But I am leaning towards voting for him in the general election as of now, if he wins the primary.

I may vote for McCain or a third party candidate, otherwise, I am obviously not sold on Hillary.

You won't get the truth if you allow yourself to be fooled by voodoo dressed up as science. The thing is, if Larry Sinclair FAILS, it doesn't prove he was lying, and if PASSES, it doesn't prove he told the truth!

If you want the truth, it will take a lot more then a polygraph to reveal it, and there isn't even circumstantial evidence as of now, any kook can make these sorts of claims, and take a polygraph.

I suspect you're one of those compensated bloggers sent out directly from the Obama campaign. I was wondering how you guy's would try to spin it, if Sinclair passes. You guy's must really be afraid he'll pass the test. That might explain why he asks Texas voters to vote early, at all his rallies there.

Does anyone remember the Gennifer Flowers press conference or the Paula Jones accusations against Bill Clinton? It was ALL over the news even though it wasn't substantiated or proven yet. Bill had to answer to these things. How come Obama doesn't?