Posted on 08/04/2005 8:48:41 AM PDT by kennedy
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU AUG 04, 2005 11:35:09 ET XXXXX
NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE'S CHILDREN
**Exclusive**
The DRUDGE REPORT has uncovered a plot in the NEW YORK TIMES' newsroom to look into the adoption of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts.
The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate adoption records of Judge Roberts’ two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals.
Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants.
Both children were adopted from Latin America.
A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoptions are part of the paper's "standard background check."
Roberts’ young son Jack delighted millions of Americans during his father’s Supreme Court nomination announcement ceremony when he wouldn’t stop dancing while the President and his father spoke to a national television audience.
Previously the WASHINGTON POST Style section had published a story criticizing the outfits Josie’s and Jack’s mother had them wear at the announcement ceremony.
One top Washington official with knowledge of the NEW YORK TIMES’ plans declared: “Trying to pry into the lives of the Roberts’ family like this is despicable. Children’s lives should be off limits. The TIMES is putting politics over fundamental decency.”
One top Republican official when told of the situation was incredulous. “This can’t possibly be true?”
Developing...
Well, I guess it's a good thing I didn't graduate from law school then seek to become a Supreme Justice years later. Evidently being a child of a parent that was adopted would be cause for great concern if I follow the line correctly here.
You are going to Hell, NYT's.
But the Times has no right to open adoption records, unless the Times reporter in question is the adoptee or is helping an ADULT adoptee to find his or her birth parents.
Yes, it is a real letter received at 2:58 pm mountain Time.
Agreed. The lawyers evidently told them to take a hike.
I don't know how FNC found out.
This is the first non-Drudge confirmation of this story.
Maybe we should request that a DNA test be run on Bill Clinton & Chelsea.
Good. But I have a hard time believing that nobody on the editorial staff didn't know before hand that what the wanted to do is against several laws.
I hope it turns out that Karl Rove was looking into some Democrat's personal, sealed records--"What's wrong with it? We're just asking!"
Liars.
Brit just said that one of the attorneys asked about this confirms that NYT was looking to get into sealed adoption records.
His guest today especially the liberal two are both sticking up for the media.
That's cause they were all hatched, like the snakes and toads that they are. ( or Lizards as in the case of Chuckles Schumer)
Just when you thought there was nothing lower than a bottom dweller's slimy belly...
They looked on the horizon and saw the beginning of a perfect Rovian Blogswarm.
Bit Hume is really going after the NY Times on this, even figuratively slapping down some of the panelists who were tossing out possible rationalizations for the Times' actions. Said he personally did the reporting on this today, and his source was a lawyer who was approached by the NY Times and asked how they could get around the law and get the adoption records unsealed. His source said that they turned the Times down cold, that such actions would be 'reprehensible'. Then Brit went after the Times' statement on what they had done, where they said they were "Just asking questions". Said it appears that the only question they had asked so far was how to get the records unsealed, and thus it looked liked they were going on an unethical fishing expedition.
Although still pretty much in his usual calm professional manner, you could tell that Hume was a bit ticked at the Times' actions.
"Strange, I don't recall a "standard background check" on the births and children of demwits, such as Clinton, Kerry, Teddy, etc."
Nope, neither legitimate or illegitimate.
It's all Bush's fault!
So the Slimes admit their "looking into" the adoption issue was a fishing expedition - disgusting but expected from the liberal media.
It's all Rove's fault!
I'm really worried.
I keep hearing persistent rumors that he removed the labels off a couple of mattresses in 1955...
Brit did some investigations into the NTY story. One of his sources spoke with one of the lawyers who was asked by the NYT, "How do we get the adoption documents unsealed."
The lawyer was so disgusted by the inquiry that he refuses to even discuss it with them.
Brit and Samon were understandably disgusted with the NTY actions. Bermbaulm hemmed and hawed about, there might be legitimate questions to be answered.
In short the NYT explanation was not what the lawyers were asked.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.