Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mewzilla
I would've thought the paper's own legal eagles would've told them that. Were they asked, I wonder?

Perhaps they did, which was why they were asking outside lawyers

50 posted on 08/06/2005 7:57:02 AM PDT by SauronOfMordor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: SauronOfMordor

They probably asked external lawyers because the internal lawyers would say "we wouldn't do anything, but we are not experts in adoption law - we recommend you contact XYZ for a more final opinion."

Diva's Husband


96 posted on 08/06/2005 9:40:05 PM PDT by Diva Betsy Ross (Code pink stinks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: SauronOfMordor
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."

The NYT was wrong in prying into the Whitewater affair which uncovered absolutely no wrongdoing by either President Clinton or his wife, Hillary Clinton, and no coverup or other criminal activity by any member of President Clinton's administration. The Republicans succeeded only in splattering mud on themselves and costing the taxpayers some $75 million.

Perhaps the NYT has learned from their Whitewater error in the case of Roberts' children. We can be happy they are doing the right thing now. I'm not similarly optimistic about the Republican Party.

102 posted on 08/10/2005 7:33:47 AM PDT by MurryMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson