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...
Nothing is too low for our enemies. The muslims use decapitation as a tool of terror and the left use character assassination as their tool of terror.
LET THE SLIMES KNOW HOW YOU FEEL!
New York Slimes Subscription Phone Number: 1-800-631-2500, then prompt number one twice!!
Tell them you are sick of their slimy tactics! This is more effective then calling the "editorial" desk and having an intern pick up the phone!
New York Slimes.
How about we look at their personal records, too?
S - I - C - K
Just when you think these journalists can't sink any lower, they surprise you and slip even lower into the gutter.
Well said. This is terrorism against conservatives.
I hope they pay, and pay, and pay for what they're doing here.......
It took me a while to figure this one out. It seemed like it was more than just making a threat to Roberts and Bush to withdraw the nomination (with the understanding that everyone breaks the law, you know).
I finally get it.
It's blaming Bush and all Republicans for the fact that Clinton always caved whenever there was any hint of wrong doing. Understandably, because Clinton had so much other baggage. But this is payback, because they actually think that Bush will cave in just because they think that he's so inferior to Clinton. Bush hasn't caved in on anything and now they think they have him by his Achilles' heel.
They are grasping at straws and impaling what shreds were left of the credibility of the NYT as a reputable news organization.
I just heard about this on the radio as I was in the car. Has there been any public comment about this other than Rush?
You were right. I didn't think they'd sink this low.
I would like to think so, but he may have to dance carefully as he probably has friends there.
But of course no one would be allowed access to those records because it is "private." So if you kill your child, you have a right to privacy, but if you adopt your child, you're fair game. I cannot express how much this disgusted me. The only benefit I see is that it exposes the hate-filled left that much further in the eyes of the American public, but what a terrible thing to do to this family.
Has anyone noticed if Hillary "It Takes A Village" had any comment on this? After all, everything she does is "for the children," so I'd hope she'd have something to say, especially given her insistence on Chelsea's privacy.
Of course it should not matter where they got the kids from or what they look like. But we live with a media who are determined to find anything that might be negative about one's personal life, so the questions are going to be asked. Like I have said before, I am sure Bush and those who vetted the candidates for nomination asked these questions, knowing what the media would do. If they had found anything illegal or unethical, he would not be the nominee, period.
It is possible that someone like Roberts, who worked in D.C. and is at the top of the legal profession would have contacts and resources to adopt the children he wanted- that's not illegal at all.
Coming from a family of 7 kids, it really must be lonely to have no siblings.
Then they are in deep doo doo. See post 208 - and believe me, it was sealed!!!
Sure they're intrigued because he adopted blonde, fair skinned kids from Latin America.
Me too. That's because Seinfeld covered a lot of life's experiences.
The Times efforts would be better spent investigating Roberts ties to the homosexual movement. Has Roberts only worked for free to aid the homosexual cause once or are their other examples of his service to the cause?
Very true! He does not seem like the type of lawyer that would mess up an adoption! He's smarter than that. I hope!
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.