Trailhead: A campaign blog.

Details on Larry Sinclair’s Arrest

It’s only fitting that the most bizarre press conference of this political season had an equally bizarre coda. Larry Sinclair, the man who claims to have had a naughty encounter with Barack Obama back in 1999, stood at a podium at the National Press Club, rattling off a litany of increasingly detailed minutiae about the incident before taking questions and exiting the building. He was arrested on his way out.

Sinclair’s rap sheet is well-documented. He has been charged with everything from larceny to theft to forgery, and drew a 16-year prison sentence in Colorado in 1987. He was released in 1999. Now it looks like he’ll be facing a new charge: Larceny, this time in Delaware.

Two members of the U.S. Marshals’ Regional Fugitive Task Force took him into custody after the press conference was over, says his lawyer, Montgomery Blair Sibley. The extradition hearing was scheduled for late this afternoon. If Sinclair gets bail, he can travel to Delaware himself to turn himself in to authorities. If not, he’ll have to travel in federal custody.

Sibley said he believes someone tipped off the Delaware authorities. “Obviously, Larry’s presence in D.C. was not a surprise or secret,” he said. “They put two and two together.”

He said he didn’t know the specific charge, but was told it was some form of larceny.

Larry Sinclair and Slander

The National Press Club has been taking some heat for allowing Larry Sinclair, the wanted, formerly incarcerated crazy person who claims to have engaged in certain deviant behaviors with Barack Obama, to hold a press conference in its Washington, D.C., building today. Critics cite the dubious nature of Sinclair’s accusation and wonder why a respected institution would give Sinclair a platform.

But here’s another angle: Is the Press Club enabling slander? When a newspaper runs an ad or column it knows to be libelous, the publication can be held legally accountable for defamation. Does the Press Club hold equal responsibility for Sinclair’s views?

David Heller, a lawyer for the Media Law Resource Center, says the Press Club is probably in the clear for three reasons. First, libel (or, when it’s spoken, slander) by definition requires that someone espouse views they know to be untrue, or show a reckless disregard for the truth—the general standard known as "actual malice." Sinclair’s charges are absurdly flimsy—he even failed a polygraph test—but no one knows them to be false. Second, publications are often able to invoke a "neutral reportage privilege" that says they reported a defamatory but newsworthy claim accurately and objectively. Some states have such a privilege; others don’t. The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear cases on the question. And thirdly, the Press Club can immunize itself by dissociating from or disagreeing with Sinclair’s claims. Talk radio hosts will often respond to a slanderous caller by pointing out that "we don’t know that" or "that hasn’t been proven" just to defend against potential law suits. Similarly, the Press Club can distance itself from Sinclair. And it has. Sylvia Smith, the club’s president, told Politico that Sinclair’s allegations "don't seem very credible."

So merely providing a forum for Sinclair is unlikely to get them in trouble. If the Obama campaign wants to hold someone accountable for Sinclair’s views, it will probably be Sinclair himself.