The Headlines - White House Defends Pardon, and Israel and Hezbollah Trade Fire

Episode Date: December 3, 2024

Plus, mail trucks get a “goofy” upgrade. Tune in every weekday morning. To get our full audio journalism and storytelling experience, download the New York Times Audio app — available to Times news subscribers on iOS — and sign up for our weekly newsletter. Tell us what you think at: [e-mail]. On Today’s Episode:Pardoning Hunter Complicates the Legacy That Biden Envisioned, by Peter BakerBroad Pardon for Hunter Biden Troubles Experts, by Kenneth P. VogelInside the Supreme Court Ethics Debate: Who Judges the Justices?, by Jodi Kantor and Abbie VanSickleWhy Israel and Hezbollah Are Still Firing Amid a Cease-Fire, by Ephrat LivniYes, It ‘Looks Like a Duck,’ but Carriers Like the New Mail Truck, by Michael Levenson

From the New York Times, it's the headlines. I'm Tracy Mumford. Today's Tuesday, December 3rd. Here's what we're covering. One of the reasons the president did the pardon is because it didn't seem like his political opponents would let go of it. It didn't seem like they would move on. And so this is why this president took

this action. The White House is on defense, fielding questions about why President Biden pardoned his son Hunter after repeatedly promising not to do so. Hunter Biden was singled out because his dad is the president. That's what we're talking about here. On Air Force One yesterday, White House Press Secretary Corrine Jean-Pierre repeated Biden's explanation that he felt the cases against his son were politically motivated. Read the president's statement. Seriously, read the president's statement. But Biden's statement has raised questions about the standing of the Justice Department.

What does it mean for the president to openly criticize its process? He believes in the Justice Department. He believes that there was... After saying all that? He believes in the justice department? This is his words. He said this. This is the president saying this. He just said it's infected with politics. Biden's continued explanation for the pardon in some ways echoes claims that Donald Trump has made, that federal investigations were weaponized against him, and that the justice system is unfair.

Meanwhile, some legal experts have been noting how broad the pardon is for Hunter Biden. It covers not just the tax charges that he pleaded guilty to and the gun charges he was convicted of, but also any crimes he might have committed in the past 11 years. Notably, that range covers the time when Hunter Biden was conducting business overseas with a Ukrainian gas company, a Chinese energy company, and more. Our reporting shows that this is something that prosecutors did look into, that is Hunter Biden's foreign business and the possibility that

it may have violated foreign lobbying laws. And they actually indicated that they had evidence that could potentially support a charge of violation of foreign lobbying laws, but they did not bring those charges. Ken Bogle covers politics for the Times. Yet the possibility that that evidence and that investigation could be revived was clearly something that the Bidens, Hunter Biden, his lawyers, as well as the president,

were acutely aware of and may have been wanting to short circuit the possibility of through this pardon. The Supreme Court is a very secretive institution, and there is a lot we don't know about how the justices debate and what they say to one another. But my colleague, Abby Van Sickle, and I, we uncovered a very unusual debate that the justices had recently about their own conduct. Times investigative reporter Jody Cantor has gotten new details about how the Supreme Court struggled behind closed doors to put an ethics code in place. The court didn't have a code until revelations

that Justice Clarence Thomas had accepted undisclosed gifts and luxury travel sparked outrage. Gifts to other justices came to light too, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest. So under growing pressure, the nine justices started writing their own guidelines last year. Jody says

the topic was so sensitive that they debated it on paper, passing envelopes back and forth instead of using email. The Times has learned that their sharpest disagreements were about whether there should be a way to enforce the code. The three liberal justices really believed that the rules needed to be more than symbolic and more than just promises. Justice Elena Kagan even proposed a kind of starter version of enforcement in which federal judges would provide the justices with advice, but her proposal really went nowhere. Several justices, led by Justice Neil Gorsuch, were really worried that any kind of ethics enforcement,

anybody essentially policing the judges, could undermine the independence of the court. Ultimately, the justices unanimously signed an ethics code with no enforcement mechanism. They essentially policed themselves, and only they can decide if they need to step back from a case. Since then, Jody says that the justices' heated debate about enforcement has spilled out into the open, and those public disagreements outside the courtroom are raising new concerns about public trust in the court. Her full investigation is at nytimes.com.

in the court. Her full investigation is at nytimes.com. In the Middle East, Israel and Hezbollah have both been pushing the limits of the ceasefire they agreed to less than a week ago. Both sides have carried out strikes and accused the other of violating the truce. Israel has repeatedly bombed sites in Lebanon and has hit back yesterday with its first strikes against Israeli-controlled territory. Despite the flare-ups, analysts say that both sides have been keeping their attacks limited, as they still think it's in their best interest to avoid spiraling back into an all-out war. One former Middle East negotiator at the State Department told the Times that this kind of smaller back and forth is not unusual, saying, quote, I've been around Lebanon's

ceasefire agreements for decades, and there was no ceasefire agreement that wasn't initially broken. And finally, what kind of reaction have you gotten from people along your route? People love it. They love it. You know, it looks funny, but it's cool. It's real cool looking. The United States Postal Service is rolling out its new fleet of mail trucks and they are turning heads.

The classic boxy mail truck is out, and the new look is a little hard to describe. It's a little cartoony, touch goofy. It's got some golf cart elements. It's got a gigantic windshield and a long, low hood. A lot of people say it looks funny. It looks like a Doug or a Platypus. It does, but I tell them to get the job done. It works for me. Richard Burton, a mail carrier in Athens, Georgia, said, platypus comparisons aside,

the best thing about the new trucks is the air conditioning, an absolute must in the South. He was surviving before with just a fan. There's also a lot more space in the back for packages, which online shopping has made essential. The Postal Service has ordered 50,000 of the new trucks, and they are a long overdue relief for mail carriers who haven't had an upgrade in the fleet since the 1980s.

The new model is also electric. Another mail carrier in Georgia, Wykelar Barnes, told my colleague, Michael Levinson, she couldn't even tell that her truck was running because it was so quiet. But she said on the street, the truck is hard to miss. It doesn't even look real. It looks like a spaceship. Have people stop you?

What's it like when you're driving around the neighborhood? All the time. All the time. People have slowed down with their phones out the window because I guess they just think it's so cool. Those are the headlines. Today on The Daily, White House correspondent Peter Baker with the inside story of how Biden made the decision to pardon his son. That's next in the New York Times audio app, or you can listen wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Tracy Mumford. We'll be back tomorrow.