Transcript
Mike Pesca (0:00)
The gist is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations.
Amazon Music Ad Voice (0:21)
From unsolved mysteries to unexplained phenomena.
Ben Terris (0:24)
From comedy goal to relationship fails. Amazon Music's got the most ad free top podcasts included with prime because the only thing that should interrupt your listening is, well, nothing.
Amazon Music Ad Voice (0:37)
Download the Amazon Music app today.
Mike Pesca (0:47)
It's Thursday, February 13, 2026. From Peach Fish Productions, it's the Gist. I'm Mike Pesca. It was a great order on two levels from Judge Richard Leon of the District Court of the District of Columbia, a couple of districts there and he laid that down. The strict dissing did the district court judge all right, that stretch district strict dis of Pete Hegseth because what Pete Hegseth was trying to do was to strip Senator Mark Kelly, also Captain Mark Kelly, of rank and pay and this would not fly, said Justice Leon. Senator Kelly does have First Amendment rights and I even tweeted where I went through the judge's ruling. I look for everything. That ended in an exclamation. There was a lot Defendants respond that Senator Kelly is seeking to exempt himself from the rules of military justice that Congress has expressly made applicable to retired service members. Horse feathers. In other words, the horse feathers argument was a description of what Hegseth was saying. If legislators do not feel free to express their views and the views of their constituents without fear of reprisal from the executive, our representative system of government can not function. Simply put, defendants remember it was Kelly brought the action, so Hegseth was defending it. Defendants response is anemic explanation. This is a troubling development in a free country. And exclamation. And then later please. He does a please, this is not the law. Yeah, it's terrible that Hegseth and the administration tried it's terrible that they tried to go after the senators and congressmen and congresswomen who put together that don't give up the ship video. But it's good that they lost. And in this analysis, the good that they lost part. There are people who more or less agree with me who are quite aggrieved that they the administration is trying this overreach, who do not take good that they lost as enough. And maybe it's not enough, but it is very good that they lost. The courts seem very strong in these matters. Even in Minnesota, where right now the Trump administration is said to be not following up to 70 something court orders. According to the Scalia clerk who is now in charge of the the Minneapolis courts that rule on such things, they have pulled back. They are more or less in compliance. The courts are taken seriously, maybe not by the rhetoric of those outside the courts, but when inside the courts they are quite taken seriously. They are, to use a phrase, a bulwark. Though I listen to shows that I like with smart guys like Jonathan V. Last of the bulwark. And he made the point that if Donald Trump had just mused about prosecuting the senators and congressmen, that would be bad enough. And then he takes it to. But they brought a case and. But they tried to get a criminal conviction. Yes, and what? It's bad. It's all very bad. The normal people who follow the rules know this to be bad. And then what? And then it becomes something like, well, it should be scandalous, it should be disqualifying. Sure, Donald Trump should have no appeal based on this and, and other things he's done, like deny the election. But what is the job of the analyst in a world where Donald Trump does have appeal, argue against that reality, try to convince the same people for whom Donald Trump has no appeal that it shouldn't be this way, but it is. So I think the usefulness of analysis is not to say, calm down, there's no big deal we got out of it, is to say it is a big deal, but look what is actually happening at the end. The important institutions are holding. They won't always hold. And, and not to be blase about it, but to accurately assess this. I think the analyst does bring and can bring that to the table. And that is my advice for how to take these things seriously and literally, but not perhaps catastrophically. On the show today, speaking of these exact same themes, Ben Terrace is here. He recently visited Donald Trump. He wrote an article about the president's mental health, little bit about his physical health too. And then the article for New York magazine became an analysis of just how the Trump administration does its thing. I don't think Ben concluded that this man is going to be expunged via the 25th Amendment, and not just because the 25th Amendment depends on other cabinet members to get together and say this guy is not up to the job. The dynamic is not there for that to happen. I think Ben Terror said is interesting. This is bizarre. There are some clear moments of lucidity or the lucidity are blended into an overhyping of Trump as a superman. But also, I think we could take a step back and assess the entire situation and find it somewhere between tragedy, farce and an imperiled republic. Ben Terrace, New York Magazine up next, The gist is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations. Ben Terrace wrote a big piece about a big guy in New York magazine. Actually, maybe not so big a guy. Quote, trump looks trimmer than he does on television. Why wasn't the White House floating that quote? Because the issue was Trump's health and not just his physical health, but that, but also his mental health. And then the piece, I think, took on dimensions that maybe questioned our questioning of Trump. It was very good. Ben's a great reporter. He joins me again on the gist. Hello, Ben.
