The New York Times killed its credibility in campaign season 2016 by declaring an adversarial approach to its coverage of Donald Trump—not only on its opinion page, mind you, but its straight news reporting.

The then-candidate was such a danger, the Gray Lady theorized, that journalistic rules of the previous 50 years should be shed (which raises the question, why have rules at all?).

The paper delivered a mea culpa of sorts following the election, but any sane person would question its sincerity, especially after its exhaustive exposé last week of Trump’s inheritance tax history.

If you were previously unaware of the fact that the president is a boorish braggart who frequently embellishes, you might be interested in what it uncovered. Other than that, there’s not much there.

The thrust of the piece centers on a grantor retained annuity trust (GRAT), which is commonly used to minimize estate planning taxes on generational wealth transfers.

The Times doesn’t like that the senior Trump employed it to his family’s benefit, which smacks of envy, but not illegality.

The writers themselves note “These maneuvers met with little resistance from the Internal Revenue Service,” and “According to tax experts, it is unlikely that Mr. Trump would be vulnerable to criminal prosecution for helping his parents evade taxes…”

Evasion/minimization, tomato/to-ma-to, according to the piece.

No matter the income level, effective tax mitigation strategies hardly signal nefarious schemes to defraud Uncle Sam. Indeed, rich guys with less political baggage frequently do the same, including Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and every progressive’s C-suite sweetheart, the late Steve Jobs.

We all do it, one reason for the tax-deferred enticements inherent in 401k plans and their resulting popularity. Remember the outcry when the idea was floated to cut contribution limits to $2,400 as part of Trump’s tax reform tradeoff? It would’ve diminished (maybe fatally) any incentive for participation and was therefore quickly scrapped.

If you want to argue for fewer loopholes for ultra-wealthy spoiled scions, by all means, go ahead.

But criticizing perfectly acceptable (and legal) strategies contained within the tax code to “own” the president, while indirectly swiping at 55 million-plus Americans for their own qualified maneuverings, only hurts “the newspaper of record,” which is quickly becoming anything but.