A source for the "Whitey tape" report

(Okay, this is the promised mini-bombshell, if I may use that term. Unfortunately, I feel constrained to be a bit cryptic for now. I post this information in order to prod certain parties to reveal themselves. In the meantime, let the guessing game begin! I didn't make the clues too difficult...)

If you scan down a couple of posts, you will see me tweak the nose of Larry Johnson, proprietor of No Quarter, the leading anti-Obama blog. Although Johnson tries very hard to be the firstest with the mostest, he is not always the bestest. To be frank, he has pissed me off on a number of occasions.

His most famous -- or notorious -- "scoop" concerns the long-fabled videotape of Michelle Obama railing against "whitey" -- a tape which the Republicans purportedly possess, and which they will (we are told) release at the last possible moment. Obviously, this tape -- if it exists -- is one of the few things that could insure a McCain victory.

(There are hints that the Clinton team also had such a tape but chose not to use it.)

Johnson has not seen the tape personally. He says, however, that he has several sources for the story -- and that at least one of his sources did see the tape. At least one of those sources is an unnamed CIA acquaintance of Johnson's.

As we've noted in previous posts, others have heard the same rumor independently -- but no-one, so far, has named a source for the rumor.

I now have a name.

Before proceeding, let me first remind readers of perhaps the most intriguing aspect of this tale: In an official response to this story -- a response which, I suspect, unintentionally revealed more than was intended -- the Obama campaign disclosed that they internally investigated the "whitey" claim. The campaign says that the claim is untrue, that Michelle made no such outburst and that no such tape has ever existed.

That internal investigation occurred before Johnson got wind of the tale.

Conclusion: Johnson did not make this thing up. Whether you like him or hate him is immaterial. He did not make the story up. Maybe someone else made it up, but not him. Johnson had a source, or several sources, and he considers those sources trustworthy -- for reasons which I now comprehend.

Earlier today, a correspondent divulged one those sources.

No, I do not have confirmation. No, I did not get the information from Larry Johnson. No, I did not get the info from Susan UnPC or from one of the other well-known No Quarter writers. (Those guys don't like me and do not talk to me.) No, I do not know the names of all of the sources. Yes, I am in receipt of scuttlebutt. Yes, I may well be misinformed. Yes, I have what I consider good reason to believe the information -- were the situation otherwise, I would not write this post. Yes, I have been misled in the past, and probably will be again.

And yes -- let us be very, very, very clear on this point -- even if the fellow named as the source is the real source, no hard evidence confirms that the source got the story right.

(Even though I've made those caveats very carefully, I have no doubt that pro-Obama fanatics will willfully misread my words, or will pretend that I did not say what I said in the previous two paragraphs.)

The name of the source is one that you would surely recognize, since he commands respect throughout the mainstream media, not just in blog-world. He is a famous investigator. For that reason -- and for another reason which will soon become clear to you -- I will here call him "Sherlock Holmes."

(Consider that a clue.)

I greatly admire Sherlock's previous work. Most of it, at least. You probably do as well. However, he has been fooled in the past. His most infamous slip-up concerned a story about a person I will here call MM. Fake documents were involved in that instance.

(Consider that another clue.)

It is my belief, or at least my suspicion, that the internal investigation within the Obama campaign began when Sherlock contacted them in order to get a confirmation or a denial on the "Whitey" rumor. (Sherlock is the sort of fellow the O-folk would take very seriously.) The O-team did some checking, and then offered a denial.

Sherlock Holmes did not write the story, perhaps because he could get no confirmation. To the best of my knowledge, he has never commented on the matter in public.

Apparently, though, he did make a comment in private, to Larry Johnson.

I do not know if Sherlock saw the video personally. Johnson's other source may have done so. One of those sources does claim to have direct knowledge of the tape's existence.

Presuming that Sherlock did not see the video, we must ask: Is Sherlock morally culpable for spreading sub rosa a tale which was not fit for print? Like it or not, nearly all reporters, writers, investigators and commentators do that sort of thing all the time. The issue of moral culpability hinges on the phrasing used by Sherlock. If he said "Here's something you may want to look into," I have no problem with what he told Johnson.

At any rate, Johnson got the same "Whitey tape" story from at least two other people. I suspect -- but do not know for a fact -- that Sherlock was the first to tell Johnson about it.

Does the tape exist? I don't know. All I can tell you is that Larry Johnson (whom I do not like, and whose rep I have no great desire to protect) is not the person whose credibility is on the line here. Someone else is -- the man whom I have here called "Sherlock Holmes."

More to come soon. In the meantime, you must remember this: A kiss is still a kiss, and...

Added note: I'm stunned to see that (almost) no-one has picked up on the clues. Here, I thought I was being thuddingly obvious. Look, honest -- I didn't make this story up. What -- me, lie?