Psychic news? Theoretical news? Thought-crime news?

Stupid theory news?

Maggie Haberman, the unethical and biased Times reporter who, often with her colleague Jonathan Swan, diligently devises news angles that will cause gullible Americans to fear and hate their President, has a new “scoop.” “Frustrated by Courts, Trump Weighed Suspending a Constitutional Right” the story is headlined. Let’s begin with the fact that as is so often the case with the Times, the headline is misleading and deceitful. When I read it, I assumed that the President had considered suspending a Constitutional right guaranteed to all Americans. Wouldn’t that be how you would read it? But the subhead makes it clear that the headline is scare-mongering: “Secret memos show that the White House debated last year, to a greater degree than previously known, whether to limit habeas corpus rights for undocumented immigrants.” Wait, the Times is playing language games again—undocumented immigrants? What the Times means is illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are people who have no right to be in the country at all. The U.S. generously (and unwisely, in my opinion) extends the constitutional rights all citizens possess to non-citizens, but that doesn’t mean that a strong argument can’t be mounted (as it has been and should be) that under certain conditions, people who are here illegally can have those rights suspended.

Maggie’s hit job story goes on to describe how a White House lawyer circulated a“confidential” memo explaining why this would be a bad idea, and as a result, the option of attempting to lock up illegal immigrants without due process of law was abandoned. In other words, nothing happened. The “news” is that the President and his advisors and lawyers discussed a possible solution to the deep and dangerous problems caused when the previous administration did not enforce U.S. laws, and decided against it. Oh, but see, it was “debated” to a “greater degree” than “previously known.” Hmmmm. At what point is debating an out-of-the-box policy too much debate when the end result is…nothing? Is a policy consideration not news when someone says, “We could do this!” and everyone says, “Nah. Are you nuts?” but suddenly is news when they say, “OK, let’s think about that” but soon someone delivers a memo that says “The idea is nuts” and then the idea is abandoned?