(no message)

You're failing an IQ test here. Badly. Do i need to say it yet again?

I like how you tempered your post with "this would be good", yet you still put it out there as if it's legitimate despite it being yet another case of "anonymous sources" that are "given the impression that he might be considering it".

Of course, when the WH flatly denies this, you will roll your eyes smugly and shake your head about "yet another course reversal and denial". In reality it is yet another denial of yet another example of fake news.

One more time Chris. Sources need to be named. Impressions aren't good enough. Writers aren't able to read minds, and thus assunptions about what others are thinking don't count as news - even if it fulfills your greatest fantasy.