If she bothered to check history, legal precedent and the Constitution, she would know that the attack on Iran did not require Congressional consent and that such consent under the conditions that prevailed is not required by the Constitution. She didn’t bother because she just wanted to signal her anti-Trump sentiments to her friends and colleagues who consider them a mark of virtue and perspicacity, when in this instance they are signature significance for irresponsible punditry, hackery, and bias.

And why didn’t an editor red-pencil that irrelevant section with a note saying, “Julia, even Grammarly is smart enough to know this section doesn’t belong here. You might as well inject a recipe for lasagna. Get serious!”? The reason why is that Times editors today are also Trump Deranged hacks with no integrity.

The line about the Iran mission represents bad research, bad taste, bad judgment and bad ethics, demonstrating how the Times and its writers see inserting Trump Hate into every nook and cranny of their paper as the equivalent of subliminal advertising in movies—the now banned practice where frames of film showing icy glasses of Coca-Cola were inserted into features to make audience members thirsty. The goal is to turn regular readers into indoctrinated zombies like Reggie Jackson in “The Naked Gun”…except that instead of chanting, “I…must..kill…the Queen!” they will be moaning, “I…must….vote…for …Democrats!”

Nah, there;s no mainstream media bias…