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?
Ethics Alarms 
I kind of like, “shit stirring” and its nominative corollary, “shit stirrers.”
“The only things I see wrong in this story is that someone, and if it was a lawyer he or she should be prosecuted and disbarred, leaked a confidential legal document to the New York Times . . .”
That is jumped out at me and assaulted my Dr. Pepper deprived mind. I was wondering, which soon-to-be-formerly licensed lawyer would do and did this? It is should be attorney-client privileged communication. If my paralegal gave that memo to my opposing counsel, that paralegal would be looking for permanent residence six feet underground.
jvb
And you would be subject to discipline too, as Rule 5.3 mandates that non-lawyer assistants be fully trained regarding the lawyers’ etrhics rules, because the lawyer is 100% responsible for misconduct by their agents,
Indeed.
The Bar is not happy when lawyers’ paralegals do dumb and/or intentionally stupid things.
As I told a Bankruptcy Judge when she asked if my paralegal filed the wrong thing, “No, your honor. In my office, liability rolls up hill and I am responsible for what is filed in my name.” Or, as I told Judge Isgur once when my paralegal filed two copies of the same notice instead of a notice and a proposed chapter 13 plan, “well, judge, it seems that I should not be allowed anywhere near a computer . . .” He laughed, preparing to obliterate me, and chuckled again.
Oh, and there was the time I took the wind out of another judge’s sails who wanted to pound on me because my paralegal filed a draft of a motion (and it clearly was a draft – stupid paralegal) instead of the final version: “Yes, judge. I saw that. I got the form of the motion off of ‘I am a doofus.com.'” His courtroom deputy spilled her coffee in response she laughed so hard. Then, I showed him what had been served on the parties. He said, “Ah, yes, in this court, we approve of subject-verb agreements.”
I do have to say, I am pleased that the authorities still have not found that paralegal’s body . . .
jvb
So, let’s get this straight:
I am forwarding this to the Bar immediately.