Friday, August 05, 2005
By Brit Hume
Posted on 08/06/2005 5:45:28 AM PDT by Libloather
Why Did They Look Into It?
Friday, August 05, 2005
By Brit Hume
Now some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine:
The New York Times has been asking lawyers who specialize in adoption cases for advice on how to get into the sealed court records on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' two adopted children.
There is no indication The Times had any evidence there was anything improper in the family's adoption of five-year-old Josie and four-year-old Jack, both born in Latin America. Sources familiar with the matter told FOX News that at least one lawyer turned the Times down flat, saying that any effort to pry into adoption case records, which are always sealed, would be reprehensible.
A Times spokesman said the paper was simply asking questions, and that only initial inquiries had been made.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Our sons SEALED adoption records are only available to us or to him by way of a third party, usually an attorney, who would attempt to contact the birth mother. IF located and she chooses not to have contact with us, that is her right.. Her privacy is to be protected.
You're misrepresenting my post 8.
What am I missing here? It's what reporters do"
You're missing the next question, which is "how can we illegally get into sealed adoption records"
Do you know that that is what someone was trying to do?
The Times obviously thinks there's something there, and they are circling it like sharks.
It's probably because the odious little quisling poofter can't keep his hands to himself around [a] NY Slimes' male interns and [b] Greek sailors. And as for the toy moose Pinchy-boy takes into the board meetings, it's really a Middlemarch teddy bear in disguise.
Besides, who would ever take a chance of an illegal adoption, knowing one day these children you love and have raised due to an illegal adoption could be taken from you...
NYT's desparation leads to a rathergate type major goof up. LOL
Ah, but I seem to recall some of those lefty reporters insisting that the issues with Monica Lewinsky (and all the other bimbos) should not be looked into because it was Clinton's "personal life." And for the most part, they didn't. It took some serious prodding to get the story out there.
Perhaps they did, which was why they were asking outside lawyers
To ask a question which involves breaking the law may easily be seen as an inducement to others to do something illegal with the knowledge that the NYT, principled as they are, will shield the "source/perp." I believe sincerely this is not just an intellectual exercise on the part of NYT but rather the initial, albeit clumsy, steps of an illegal conspiracy to steal legally sealed and court protected records.
(Deserves repeating.)
I'm thinking they're hoping to attack the children by exposing their natural parents in some way--for instance, maybe the mom was a prostitute or a drug addict, or perhaps the dad was a criminal of some sort. Hold this over the Roberts family, and they're faced with harming their children at a young and tender age, or refusing the nomination.
If there's an act on Earth less sordid than adoption, I'd like to know what it is. But the Times is sniffing around for dirt around the edges, and writes no story because no dirt was found.
I guess they're saying it's fair game to inquire about a candidate's abortion history ... and to write about it if it sheds new light on the candidate's moral views or judicial temperament?
As an adopted person let me tell you that my mother went to her grave with an overwhelming horror and dread about my adoptive status. She was upset when I told my fiance -now wife- that I was adopted feeling that in some way it reflected on her. She feared that I might someday want to learn about the biological relations I might have and it would be shattering.
This is a personal area of sensitivity equivalent-if not more sensitive -to the Schiavo case. The people who do this are ghouls and blood suckers and do not deserve your equivalence.
Sealed means they aren't publicly available. It doesn't mean a liberal court clerk can't go into the storeroom, locate the records, make a copy and viola! Of course, such info couldn't be officially used by the Dem's but it could be used for a smear campaign.
Being that this is the NY Times, they are simply throwing a bait and see who bites. I am sure there's someone at the Times right now sitting by a phone waiting for the next unidentified source with details of the adoption. Of course they won't care how the source obtained the information as long as it is damaging to the Roberts nomination.
They truly are the NY Slimes!
Like I said it a pain, I should know I am adopted.
Could you imagine the uproar if a conservative journalist had raised questions about a liberal judicial nominees children?
I agree. What other sealed records does the NYT have a right to unseal?
There's no end....how about a candidate's parent's medical records so we can be enlightened to any premarital sex based on the candidate's birthdate? What about school records so we can verify if the candidate's parents were sufficiently active in PTA? Let's make his priest reveal what he has said in the confessional......
This is Bill Bennett's gambling and the Bush DUI all over again: Conservatives, because they oppose abortion (a.k.a. "the right to privacy"), have no right to privacy.
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.