Once again I point out that thinking about things, talking about them and arguing about them isn’t unethical or illegal. What matters in ethics is conduct and action. I guarantee that all sorts of wacky, potentially illegal measures have been considered by every White House, and we know about a tiny fraction of them, and those only after decades of historical archeology. Lincoln’s Secretary of State, William Seward wanted Lincoln to declare war on France and England so the South, out of patriotic fervor, would re-unite with the North to fight common enemies. Was Seward’s stupid idea discussed “to a greater degree than previously known” before finally Abe said, like Sydney Wang above, “Bill, That’s the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard in my life!” Who knows? Who cares? What matters is that it didn’t happen, and what doesn’t happen isn’t news.
What the Times is doing here, again, is trying to frighten hysterics and the gullible Trump Deranged. “See? SEE? Trump is a dictator! He almost decided to suspend our constitutional rights!” That is a false assumption.
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, and the Times aided and abetted illegal and unethical conduct by accepting the document and publishing it.
All management and leadership groups periodically spit-ball and debate radical ideas and strategies. There is nothing unethical, ominous or threatening about that; indeed it is incompetent not to cast a wide metaphorical net for innovative solutions. The fact that the alleged flagship of U.S. journalism would engage in this fake news reporting as part of a partisan effort to alienate the public from their elected leader is more significant news, or would be if the Times hasn’t been publishing this kind of crap for years.
But what should we call it, other than “crap”?
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.