Posted on 09/24/2016 1:53:03 PM PDT by Kaslin
The New York Times and Gannett news have been trying to gain access to Donald Trump’s sealed divorce records on the grounds that they are of public interest now that he is running for President. Politico reports that New York judge Frank Nervo has rejected that argument:
“Were the court to make the confidential records available for journalistic, and thus public, scrutiny, it would impermissibly inject itself into the political process by making the value judgment of what information is useful in determining the present candidate’s, or any other candidate’s, fitness for office,” Nervo wrote. “The court’s role in the electoral process is strictly limited to determining whether a candidate complies with the Election Law. The court will not take an action that exceeds that limitation.”
Judge Nervo’s decision specifically noted that, even if there was a public interest in unsealing the records of Donald Trump’s divorce, there is no similar public interest in unsealing Ivana’s records:
The court is obviously aware that one of the parties, who opposes this motion, is a presidential candidate. The court is also aware that the other party, who also opposes this application, is not seeking public office. If the court were to deprive the candidate party of his rights under the agreement and the statue on the grounds that there may be something in the confidential file that would be useful in determining his fitness for office, that ground does not exist in the case of his former wife who is not a candidate.
Both Donald and Ivana opposed unsealing the divorce records. Perhaps if Ivana had attempted to waive her privacy interest the judge might have ruled differently, but he writes that under the circumstances and under the law of New York he has no cause to violate her privacy.
Trump’s attorney told Politico, “We are pleased with the Court’s well-reasoned decision and order.” The NY Times has not indicated whether or not it will appeal the decision.
TRUST ME....these will be OPEN right before election day!!! It’s how DEMOCRATS WIN ERECTIONS!!!!
They weren’t leaked. A judge ordered their release. It’s quite a coincidence that the news media didn’t request the release of John Kerry’s records at the same time.
She has the same hateful, phony smile as her daughter.
They’ve hit the bottom of the barrel with this. It was the right decision by the judge.
There seems to be precedent.
The Tribune did to Ryan (on Obama’s behalf ?) in their Senate race.
Didn’t he have all his college records sealed ?
The incident was so far in the past that apparently someone going to the court house without knowing about it probably would have come up empty. The theory that was advanced is that the DUI was in the FBI file on George H. W. Bush (since that would include information on family members) and that that file had been one of those Hillary borrowed when they first went to the White House. That tidbit could then have been passed on to the operative who went to the court house and was able to find the file on the case (from 1976, I think)...which they then sat on until the Thursday before the election so that it would have maximum impact.
Actually, this was the 2nd time that Obama used the court system and divorce records to remove an opponent. In the Democrat Primary for the 2004 US Senate race, Blair Hull, a wealthy businessman, looked to be leading but rumors of wife abuse with his ex getting an 'order of protection', caused a media storm, ably aided by ex Chicago Tribune staffer, David Axelrod. 18 days before the primary, Hull and his ex-wife unsealed the record to find him admitting to kicking her shins when she kicked his leg. He ended in 3rd place at 10% of vote.
Next was Chicago businessman and financier, Jack Ryan, winner of the GOP Primary and ex-husband of TV Star, Jerri Ryan, aka "7 of 9" on Star Trek:Voyager. Married from 1991 to 1999 with a son, their divorce records in California were sealed and when the pressure from the unbiased media built, they mutually agreed to open the divorce decree but not the custody and statement records as that could be damaging to their son. This time, it was a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge, Robert Schnider, who opened the records for the media. The dirt was that Jerri Ryan had accused her husband of asking her to do public sex at several sex clubs. This was countering his accusation of having an affair but it was this story that made all of the news outlets. Jack Ryan dropped out of the race days later.
Making public a candidates divorce records...THAT has a familiar ring to it.
This is right out of the Obama Senate Campaign Playbook when he and the media had the divorce records unsealed for Jack Ryan, and effectively neutered Ryan’s campaign (plus the IL-ANNOY Republicans wussed out).
Oh, I know. It is SOP for leftist demagogues to trash Republicans, whether there is anything substantive or not to trash them over.
Trump’s highly public record makes it that much harder for them to use their customary slimy tactics and get away with it.
We have stone currency today, it is called art.
The Left are hypocrites about personal lives being a private matter... until they decide it isn’t.
A couple’s divorce isn’t your business or mine. It sure as hell isn’t the business of the New York Times and Gannett.
None of us are perfect - and some aspects of our lives aren’t for strangers to judge.
I was not a member of FR when that October surprise was pulled against Bush. At the time, I was working on Bush’s campaign and actively involved with the local Republican party. When Gore would not accept the results of the election, we (husband, son, and I) made signs and showed up for the protests in Sacramento. Around that time, my husband found out about FR and told me about it. I joined shortly after (hubby has never joined, but then he doesn’t make a hobby of posting anywhere). I actually found pics of the Sacto rallies on FR, with me and my son in them. :)
LOL.
I’d love to see that. However, I respect her right to privacy. It’s not her fault and she doesn’t deserve to be dragged through the mud because of it. (She might deserve it for other reasons connected to the Clinton Crime Foundation, but not due to her paternity.)
They win elections that way too.
Freudian slip? Hehe
How about Hillary’s abortion that she had early on in her marriage? (cricket,cricket)..
Hadn’t heard that one.
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.