Good morning. It's December 3rd. It is another bright and cold morning in New York City, and this is your Indignity Morning Podcast. I'm your host, Tom Scocca, taking a look at the day and the news. 

In South Korea, President Yoon Suk-Yeol abruptly declared martial law in the name of combating anti-state forces, upon which the National Assembly gathered in late night session to overrule his declaration and removed the state of martial law. The AP reports that police and military personnel were seen leaving the assembly's grounds after the speaker called for their withdrawal. Along with the opposition, the leader of UNE's own party, the AP reports, called the decision to impose martial law wrong and vowed to stop it with the people. 

Far behind that wave of breaking news, the front of the print edition of this morning's New York Times gives the lead news column over to a news analysis piece. “With pardon, Biden echoes rival's gripes, saying raw politics tainted legal process.” The idea here from Peter Baker being that Joe Biden's decision to pardon Hunter Biden is basically, approximately the same thing as Donald Trump's lifelong commitment to obstruction of justice on his own behalf. “The pardon and Mr. Biden's stated rationale for granting it,” Baker writes, “will inevitably muddy the political waters as Mr. Trump prepares to take office with plans to use the Justice Department and FBI to pursue retribution against his political adversaries.” It will inevitably muddy the water, writes the person whose job it is to look through the water as he shuffles his boots along the silty bottom. “Their arguments are, of course,” Baker continues, “different in important respects. Mr. Trump contends that the two indictments against him by Mr. Biden's Justice Department amounted to a partisan witch hunt targeting the sitting president's main rival, Mr. Biden did not explicitly accuse the Justice Department of being biased against his family, but suggested that it was influenced by Republican politicians who have waged a long public campaign assailing Hunter Biden.” That doesn't really seem like a very sharp point of distinction. And then comes a chilling look into the mindset of the times as it faces or doesn't face the new political reality. “Mr. Biden's pardon,” the story continues, “will make it harder for Democrats to defend the integrity of the Justice Department and stand against Mr. Trump's unapologetic plans to use it for political purposes, even as he seeks to install Kash Patel, an adviser who has vowed to come after the president-elect's enemies as the next director of the FBI.” Joe Biden is a lame duck, and he is going to be gone by the time that Donald Trump actually sets about trying to put Kash Patel in charge of the FBI. Joe Biden will not be the relevant frame of reference for whatever Donald Trump does with the Justice Department. But even more pressingly, why is the stance against Donald Trump's unapologetic plans to use the Justice Department for political purposes the responsibility of the Democrats? Why should the judgment of one babbling old man establish the boundaries of the arena in which the fight for some semblance of the rule of law is going to take place?

The Democrats just spent four years demonstrating that they don't have the necessary courage and imagination to confront Donald Trump for what he actually is. So did the New York Times. But there's no reason for the performance of the one to determine the performance of the other. If Donald Trump uses federal law enforcement to come after his enemies, that's not partisan politics in which the newspaper's duty is to be a referee. It's an assault on the basic premises of liberal democracy, which at prize season our leading newspapers profess themselves to be the defenders of. Stop positioning your judgment relative to Joe Biden and do your job. 

Next to that on page one is a piece of extremely straight faced framing. “Schumer seeks FBI vetting for nominees, pushes to keep norms in a GOP Senate.” It's about how the current Senate majority leader and future Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer since a letter to John Thune, the majority leader in waiting, offering to work with Senate Republicans and saying, as the Times quotes the letter, “we commit to working in a bipartisan fashion to process each nominee by reviewing standard FBI background investigation materials, scheduling hearings and markups in the committees of jurisdiction and considering nominees on the Senate floor.” This boilerplate about the standard workings of the cabinet nomination process is front page news because Donald Trump has threatened to skip some or all of it in the hopes of seating the assortment of cranks, crooks, creeps, and accused sex offenders with whom he wants to staff his administration with a minimum of formal public scrutiny. 

Down below the fold on page one, the headline is, “A Culture War Battle Roils a School Panel in Liberal Manhattan.” By a “Culture War Battle,” here they mean a few vicious self-promoting right-wing kooks. who have turned the non-binding proceedings of the District 2 Community Education Council into a venue for transmitting and general jackassery. As ever, the culture issue in the culture wars boils down to whether you think human society should exist and are willing to engage in the basic behaviors and attitudes necessary to keep it functioning.

That is the news. Thank you for listening. The Indignity Morning Podcast is edited by Joe MacLeod.

The theme song is composed and performed by Mack Scocca-Ho. You, the listeners, support our podcasting through your subscription dollars and tips, so please do keep those going if you can. And barring something unexpected, we will talk again tomorrow.