I commented last night on the fact that the New York Times has yet to run a single word on the Air America scandal. I gently surmised that this might have something to do with the paper’s biases, or, perhaps, the fact that investigating Air America would require work–you know, actual investigation–as opposed to merely quoting Democratic Party officials.
It turns out that I wronged the Times, and I apologize for underestimating the paper’s investigative capability. It turns out that the Times is still capable of investigating wrongdoing. In fact, it has been busily investigating John Roberts’ children, aged five and four.
I can’t add much to what Drudge and Michelle Malkin have written. The Times admits that it has been checking into the adoption of Roberts’ children, as Drudge reported. As usual, the Times denounces Drudge, but doesn’t identify anything he wrote which is incorrect. Worst of all, the paper describes its investigation into the Roberts children’s adoptions as “initial inquiries” which “detected nothing irregular about the adoptions.” Apparently the investigation came up dry and was suspended.
The Times explained further that “We report extensively on the life and career of any nominee or candidate for high public office,” implying that checking into “irregularities” in adoptions is something they do for “any nominee or candidate for high public office.” I really wonder about that. I’d be curious to know when the Times last investigated the “regularity” of an adoption by a Democratic office-seeker.
In any event, now that the Times’ investigation into John Roberts’ four and five year old children has fizzled out and been abandoned, can they free up some resources to start checking into Air America’s financial chicanery?
UPDATE: Brit Hume reports:
The New York Times (search) 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.
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.