Surprising no one, the New York Times has continued its series of front page stories warning of the impending danger of a Donald Trump administration. Trump himself has provided plenty of material worthy of criticism as well as outright condemnation, but the Times can’t help but put its lack of self-awareness on display daily in its mission to protect the queen bee.

Among its most recent warnings of certain doom is a consensus of legal scholars arguing that President Trump would sweep aside any concern over constitutional separation of powers. “Who knows what Donald Trump with a pen and phone would do?” asks Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, completely overlooking the fact that it was President Obama who in 2014 invited Congress to say hello to his little friends, his pen and his phone.

But if that actually happened under President Obama, who cares deeply about separation of powers, imagine how much worse it will be when Trump, who doesn’t at all, inherits that pen.

Let’s just forget about that whole bloody, flaming San Jose unpleasantness, OK? We’re talking about the future here.

New York Times Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak concedes this much: “Republican officials have criticized Mr. Obama for what they have called his unconstitutional expansion of executive power. But some legal scholars who share that view say the problem under a President Trump would be worse.”

More than simply Republican officials have criticized President Obama’s overreach, but we don’t recall a preemptive warning from the New York Times in 2008.

It certainly seems like any one of the scholars quoted could have been invited to submit an op-ed piece instead.

It will be exactly the same, but a million times worse.

Waiting? We’re still waiting for Grandma to check her answering machine for that 3 a.m. phone call from Libya.