Lawyers for The New York Times Company and Gannett (the parent company of USA Today) pressed the New York Supreme Court on Thursday to unseal the records of Donald Trump’s 1990 divorce from his first wife Ivana. That looks like a transparent media-alliance move for Hillary Clinton.

Tactically, this seems very similar to the Chicago Tribune playing this courtroom game to clear Barack Obama’s path to the U.S. Senate in 2004. They sued for the divorce records of both Obama’s wealthy Democratic rival Blair Hull, who came in third to Obama in the primary, and then Republican nominee Jack Ryan, who was forced to leave the race, leaving Obama a cakewalk against carpet-bagging black Republican Alan Keyes.

Notice this suit didn't happen until now, with a sudden appeal that the records must be unsealed by November. They didn't sue before Trump secured the Republican nomination. It reeks of a general-election strategy.

Of course the liberal-media company lawyers claim the most public-spirited of principles. The filing notes that a 1993 biography of Trump reported that Ivana Trump told friends that her husband had "raped" her in 1989 during a fit of rage, which Ivana denied in the current campaign. The Trump-hating New York Daily News summarized the brief:

In court papers, Times lawyer David McCraw contends that "marital fidelity is also an issue in the Presidential campaign: it is a reflection of character that many voters consider relevant to a candidate's fitness for office." [Suppress the giggles at the New York Times insincerely channeling voters who don’t hold their jaded views on humanity.] He notes that Trump has made an issue of "the marital relationship between Ms. Clinton and her husband, and criticized Ms. Clinton as having attacked women who came forward and claimed to have had sexual relations with President Clinton." Citing news articles, magazine pieces and other court files, the news organizations say that over 25 years, there has been a "patchwork of partially disclosed, partially sealed documents and public statements that may or may not capture accurately what happened” in the sensational divorce case. “This is not the record upon which voters should go to the polls in November."

As if voters deciding on the Clintons for president ever broke through a patchwork of partial disclosures and complete lies about their marital failures.

USA Today's story on their own crusade added the brief argued "It would be deeply incongruous to American democracy to bar the public from seeing the official court records pertaining directly to the credibility and character of a person they must soon decide whether to elect as their president."

It could be argued that what is "deeply incongrous to American democracy" is liberal-media companies suing to ruin Republican campaigns for national office.

It would also be shocking if these outfits went to court in New York seeking to unseal juicy divorce records on say, Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his ex-wife Kerry Kennedy Cuomo. Why would any media outlet want to get an outbreak of "right-to-knowitis" and disturb Cuomo's comfortable cakewalks to Gracie Mansion?

So how often do The New York Times and USA Today recount the Juanita Broaddrick's 1999 rape allegation against Bill Clinton? A Nexis search of the last two years shows USA Today had only two results, both from columnists (liberal Michael Wolff and conservative Glenn Reynolds.)

The Times has mentioned the name six times, but the most relevant one is an angry staff editorial from January 8, 2016 with the fascinating title "Donald Trump Drags Bill Clinton's Baggage Out." Trump should stop digging through ancient history, they insist!