TPM THIS WEEK...

One of the tried and true ways to draw attention to a news story is to talk about the unprecedented nature of the events contained within it. It's in the DNA of journalists to seek out the unusual. It's a profession propped up by aphorisms like "man bites dog" and sayings such as "you never hear about the plane that didn't crash." But if journalists are biased toward the unprecedented, that can also make them dependent on the status quo — sometimes to the point of defending it. That's a challenging position to be in when the status quo isn't particularly popular in the first place.

This week, both President Biden and President-elect Trump caught the ire of certain journalists for actions both unprecedented and potentially threatening to the status quo. 

In granting a blanket pardon to his son Hunter, Biden was characterized by some in the media as having given "a rich gift to those who want to blow up the justice system," and giving credence to those "who claim the government is a self-dealing club for hypocritical elites." From this perspective, Biden had effectively thrown under the bus the post-Watergate norm of a politically independent Justice Department. 

Accused of trampling this same tradition, Trump on Monday made public his intention to nominate Kash Patel to lead the FBI — someone who has explicitly stated his intentions to prosecute MAGA's perceived political enemies and run the department at the behest of Trump.  

It should be immediately obvious that both actions do not pose the same threat to the integrity of the Justice Department, but what to make of the fact that they both seemed to violate the same norm?

In a New York Times article titled "Justice Dept.'s Apolitical Tradition Is Challenged by 2 Presidents" (a headline that should be in the bothersiderism hall of fame), the writer attempts to work through this dilemma. Skipping around between legal experts and anonymous sources at the Justice Department, the writer eventually concludes that while Trump poses the bigger threat to the impartiality of law enforcement, both men can be blamed for degrading the status quo.

While it's easy to pick on the Times here, the impulse to evaluate the threat-level of certain actions or events by how well they fit into the context of existing norms is common practice for a reason. Upholding tradition is important, especially when those traditions speak to the ideals or common goals of a society. It's only a problem when the norms and the status quo they ostensibly protect are no longer in sync.

Would Biden have taken the unprecedented action of pardoning his son if Kamala Harris had won the election? Or considered another way, is it accurate to judge Biden's pardon under the same rubric of norms, as though the status quo hadn't already changed with Trump's victory?

In the Backchannel this week, Josh Marshall makes the case that the Hunter Biden pardon and Kash Patel's nomination are actually the same story. Regardless of whether you agree with the pardon, if Biden was going to issue it, it had to be all encompassing. This is because Patel had already promised that he would bring new charges against Hunter if Trump won. If you're operating under the assumption that your political enemies are after you, why bother closing the door halfway?

While it's true that Trump is not yet the president and Patel not yet the FBI director, it seems reasonable to question whether norms like those undergirding the political independence of the Justice Department still hold the same weight or if they apply to the current moment at all. With the status quo existing in a liminal state, it's a tough time for journalists to make sense of. It might even be unprecedented. 

Speaking of precedent … catch up on Kate Riga's coverage of Supreme Court oral arguments in U.S. v Skrmetti, a case that could affect the right to gender-affirming care. 

And for something "fun", Nicole Lafond wrote about Dinesh D'Souza and the growing coterie of election deniers quietly dropping the act.

On the podcast, Kate and Josh discuss the Hunter pardon, Pete Hegseth and his mom and the ascendancy of some star House Democrats.

 -Derick D.

By Josh Marshall

Republicans are like the weather. Destructive and unpredictable, perhaps capricious and sometimes dangerous. But who shouts at the rain? Those are the deeply carved grooves into which our elite media narratives all turn. How else do you explain the vastly bigger press uproar over Biden's pardon than a notorious charlatan who's promised to abuse his power at every opportunity being on a fast track to take over federal law enforcement?

The conservatives pushed a "leave it to the states" approach, not bothering to make much of an argument about why Tennessee's trans minor health care ban doesn't trigger heightened protections.

Related ➡ Right-Wing Justices Eager To Assert That Trans Case Has Nothing To Do With 2020 LGBTQ Win

You'll remember "2,000 Mules" as the wildly inflammatory film that riled up Trump supporters in the wake of his 2020 defeat by President Joe Biden. The film was released in May 2022 and argued for the existence of paid "mules" who stuffed ballot drop boxes with pro-Biden ballots during pandemic voting that year. It relied on junk data, surveillance footage and supposed geolocation tracking pulled together by the Trump-aligned election denialism group True The Vote to make its argument. None of the accusations were backed up by any real evidence, as multiple journalists reported at the time and in the years since.

Kate and Josh discuss the Hunter pardon, Pete Hegseth and his mom and the ascendancy of some star House Democrats.

ONE MORE THING...

Over on Bluesky, TPM publisher Joe Ragazzo explained why TPM is a better kind of media company. There's even a reward at the end of the thread. Thanks for reading!