Federal police patrol Washington, D.C., but federal prosecutors have trouble securing indictments; another federal court rules against Trump's tariffs.
Could someone please explain this to me - I can't find any other references to this phrasing:
"he always has this expression that suggests that he just **bargained on a fart and lost.**" I understand the look on Director KP's face that is being described, but is Ken implying that KP's expression is one of someone A) trying to pass an hopefully undetectable fart and failing miserably? (perhaps implying gambled more than bargained) or B) was in some sort of hypothetical auction and received a fart? or C) something else entirely?
That’s a heck of a humblebrag that you get enough fiber in your diet. ;)
The idea of “betting on a fart and losing” usually connotes that the person was convinced they were *only* passing gas until they let it rip and discovered (insert DirectorPatel.jpg) there was… at least one additional state of matter involved. If you catch my drift.
I’m so proud that this explanation could be my first contribution to the comments section.
Thank you. I put the phrase to two friends and they immediately came to the conclusion you did. Surprised I didn't see it right away. It's added to the lexicon!
Great episode. The idea that the president can decide that anything is a for-cause firing without review seems rather dangerous and a nullification of powers given to Congress.
With the end of the government fiscal year approaching, I am curious to see where things are on the issue of impoundment.
Not sure where you want questions for future episodes, but here's one: Could Jimmy Kimmel be able to sue the Federal Government/Brendan Carr for damages? Sovereign immunity might apply.
We're going to get to the point where Trump says "I have the power to fire the Fed chair for cause, so I fired Jerome Powell cause I didn't like his policy" and SCOTUS will be like "What are you going to do? The President's interpretation of 'cause' is unreviewable."
Listener Question: Can E. Jean Carroll file a motion to compel to get Donald Trump to pay (or put into an escrow) the $5M award he owes her, citing his declining physical health, while he considers filing an appeal with the Supreme Court?
How often do you come across a false dilemma ("do you want to lose an election or are you just out of touch?") and think, "that really sounds like someone participating honestly"? At best you were using snark to try to precipitate an honest discussion in the "chambre d'echo". I'm guessing you weren't, considering you've followed up by Karening him on another forum and saying he has a brain worm and his opinions are too partisan.
Just so we're clear, the way to deal with a troll is to block them - they aren't participating in good faith so there is zero reason to legitimize them. Blocking a troll doesn't mean you're hypersensitive. It doesn't mean you're proving Nate Silver correct. It's just what you do on a large, anonymous platform when someone owns you with an epic slam.
I'm glad to hear that in your heart you made the comment in good faith.
Josh missed Ken’s best joke, about how this is not the first time Jeanine Pirro has been thwarted by choosing the wrong proof.
I am not appreciated in my own time
Ken
It seemed as if Josh missed your double entendre concerning "proof" in relation to DOJ hero, Botix Wine Box Pirro.
I found it an excellent aside.
That "choosing the wrong proof" joke didn’t get nearly enough reaction. 🤣
It did from me!
I cannot believe you pronounced it pie-rogi
Could someone please explain this to me - I can't find any other references to this phrasing:
"he always has this expression that suggests that he just **bargained on a fart and lost.**" I understand the look on Director KP's face that is being described, but is Ken implying that KP's expression is one of someone A) trying to pass an hopefully undetectable fart and failing miserably? (perhaps implying gambled more than bargained) or B) was in some sort of hypothetical auction and received a fart? or C) something else entirely?
That’s a heck of a humblebrag that you get enough fiber in your diet. ;)
The idea of “betting on a fart and losing” usually connotes that the person was convinced they were *only* passing gas until they let it rip and discovered (insert DirectorPatel.jpg) there was… at least one additional state of matter involved. If you catch my drift.
I’m so proud that this explanation could be my first contribution to the comments section.
Thank you. I put the phrase to two friends and they immediately came to the conclusion you did. Surprised I didn't see it right away. It's added to the lexicon!
Great episode. The idea that the president can decide that anything is a for-cause firing without review seems rather dangerous and a nullification of powers given to Congress.
With the end of the government fiscal year approaching, I am curious to see where things are on the issue of impoundment.
Since we are cross-posting complaints among platforms, your pronunciation of pierogi is offense and proves Nate Silver is right about everything.
ha! strength in malnumbers
Not sure where you want questions for future episodes, but here's one: Could Jimmy Kimmel be able to sue the Federal Government/Brendan Carr for damages? Sovereign immunity might apply.
We're going to get to the point where Trump says "I have the power to fire the Fed chair for cause, so I fired Jerome Powell cause I didn't like his policy" and SCOTUS will be like "What are you going to do? The President's interpretation of 'cause' is unreviewable."
Listener Question: Can E. Jean Carroll file a motion to compel to get Donald Trump to pay (or put into an escrow) the $5M award he owes her, citing his declining physical health, while he considers filing an appeal with the Supreme Court?
I'm not getting the Jeanine Pirro proof joke, and at this point I'm afraid to ask.
Letting the Rudy story marinate a bit I see.
Can't wait to find out if what we all think happened happened...
Is it that you don't believe that's phrased trollishly or that you think bsky dialogue should be trollish-sounding?
How often do you come across a false dilemma ("do you want to lose an election or are you just out of touch?") and think, "that really sounds like someone participating honestly"? At best you were using snark to try to precipitate an honest discussion in the "chambre d'echo". I'm guessing you weren't, considering you've followed up by Karening him on another forum and saying he has a brain worm and his opinions are too partisan.
Just so we're clear, the way to deal with a troll is to block them - they aren't participating in good faith so there is zero reason to legitimize them. Blocking a troll doesn't mean you're hypersensitive. It doesn't mean you're proving Nate Silver correct. It's just what you do on a large, anonymous platform when someone owns you with an epic slam.
I'm glad to hear that in your heart you made the comment in good faith.
sounds like you won't be voting for ken.