Reporter: “If there were a second strike that kiIIed, wounded people… Do you think that’s illegal?”

President Trump: “Number one I don’t know that — that happened and Pete said he did not even know what people were talking about. We’ll look into it. But no, I wouldn’t have… pic.twitter.com/RP68LZ9JIq

— RedWave Press (@RedWave_Press) November 30, 2025

Uhhhh…doesn't sound like a vote of confidence

"Pete said that did not happen. I have great confidence" does not register to you as a vote of confidence?

Sounds more like anonymous sources likely got the details mixed up again.

flown-the-coop said:

---

"Pete said that did not happen. I have great confidence" does not register to you as a vote of confidence?

Sounds more like anonymous sources likely got the details mixed up again.

---

Bruh…if that's what you're taking away from that statement then we need to have a longer conversation about how politics work.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

YouBet said:

---

LMCane said:

---

I do wonder what the end game here is

we are already sending B-52 Buff H with F-18 Super Hornets to fly off the coast of Venezuela

there is an airbase in Puerto Rico which looks like DFW airport right now with so many USAF and US Navy aircraft.

what's the end game.

---

To get Maduro out of office. It's already been shared that's the goal.

I assumed that was obvious to everyone?

---

Ok…so how do we get Maduro out of office?

Last time I checked, doing a bunch of bombings against an unpopular regime did not result in the regime's overthrow.

---

Assassinate him? We've also already been told spec ops are on the ground in Venezuela weeks ago.

YouBet said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

YouBet said:

---

LMCane said:

---

I do wonder what the end game here is

we are already sending B-52 Buff H with F-18 Super Hornets to fly off the coast of Venezuela

there is an airbase in Puerto Rico which looks like DFW airport right now with so many USAF and US Navy aircraft.

what's the end game.

---

To get Maduro out of office. It's already been shared that's the goal.

I assumed that was obvious to everyone?

---

Ok…so how do we get Maduro out of office?

Last time I checked, doing a bunch of bombings against an unpopular regime did not result in the regime's overthrow.

---

Assassinate him? We've also already been told spec ops are on the ground in Venezuela weeks ago.

---

And when his replacement takes over?


I'm not trying to be an ass (ok, maybe a little), but punishment campaigns to achieve regime change have an insanely low success rate.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

YouBet said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

YouBet said:

---

LMCane said:

---

I do wonder what the end game here is

we are already sending B-52 Buff H with F-18 Super Hornets to fly off the coast of Venezuela

there is an airbase in Puerto Rico which looks like DFW airport right now with so many USAF and US Navy aircraft.

what's the end game.

---

To get Maduro out of office. It's already been shared that's the goal.

I assumed that was obvious to everyone?

---

Ok…so how do we get Maduro out of office?

Last time I checked, doing a bunch of bombings against an unpopular regime did not result in the regime's overthrow.

---

Assassinate him? We've also already been told spec ops are on the ground in Venezuela weeks ago.

---

And when his replacement takes over?


I'm not trying to be an ass (ok, maybe a little), but punishment campaigns to achieve regime change have an insanely low success rate.

---

I don't know. I'm just sharing what the end game is. What we do post end game is anyone's guess which we could easily screw the pooch on considering our history in regime change.

My only guess is that we would promote that female politician that is currently in hiding in country somewhere.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

"Pete said that did not happen. I have great confidence" does not register to you as a vote of confidence?

Sounds more like anonymous sources likely got the details mixed up again.

---

Bruh…if that's what you're taking away from that statement then we need to have a longer conversation about how politics work.

---

Leavitt standing by Hegseth again today. Their confidence must be truly shaky at this point.

So shaky they confirmed Bradley issued the order in accordance with the law to fully eliminate the target in defense of our Country.

Should we expect Hegseth to be working on his resume today?

flown-the-coop said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

"Pete said that did not happen. I have great confidence" does not register to you as a vote of confidence?

Sounds more like anonymous sources likely got the details mixed up again.

---

Bruh…if that's what you're taking away from that statement then we need to have a longer conversation about how politics work.

---

Leavitt standing by Hegseth again today. Their confidence must be truly shaky at this point.

So shaky they confirmed Bradley issued the order in accordance with the law to fully eliminate the target in defense of our Country.

Should we expect Hegseth to be working on his resume today?

---

Reporter: Does the administration deny that that second strike happened or did it happen and the administration denies that Hegseth gave the order 

Leavitt: The latter is true pic.twitter.com/UKiI5vcD29

— Acyn (@Acyn) December 1, 2025

"I'll take scapegoating for $500 Alex"

The left continues to lie. Sedition.

Did you watch the clip? Or the presser? Cause she repeatedly said Bradley FOLLOWED THE LAW in the attack.

So do people get scapegoated for lawful activity? Seems hard to have a scandal if nothing is wrong.

But keep trying.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Did you watch the clip? Or the presser? Cause she repeatedly said Bradley FOLLOWED THE LAW in the attack.

So do people get scapegoated for lawful activity? Seems hard to have a scandal if nothing is wrong.

But keep trying.

---

Tell yourself what you need to. But Act 1 of this saga ain't even over yet.

Holsey has yet to testify in front of committees.

Walls closing in and whatnot.

Don't even understand why this is a topic. You aren't only allowed 1 shot when you go after these guys.

My response would have been: "We didn't get everyone with the first shot so we took another one to make sure."

What's the problem?

YouBet said:

---

Don't even understand why this is a topic. You aren't only allowed 1 shot when you go after these guys.

My response would have been: "We didn't get everyone with the first shot so we took another one to make sure."

What's the problem?

---

A very specific Geneva convention…see Peleus Trial.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/1997/february/peleus-war-crimes-trial

Quote:

---

Hoffmann, Weisspfennig, and Schwender claimed that they obeyed the order of their commanding officer. Indeed, the doctor even claimed that this overrode the regulation which forbade medical officers from bearing arms. Undoubtedly the most curious case, however, was that of Lenz, the chief engineer, who had not only decided that the order was clearly illegal but had argued with Eck about it. Nevertheless, when he returned to the bridge later during that fateful evening he had elbowed Schwender aside and taken over his machine gun. His grounds for doing so were that Schwender was a "bad character" and thus "unworthy" to participate in such a crimean argument which clearly perplexed the British members of the court and which was referred to by the judge-advocate as "the most extraordinary piece of evidence" in the case. The last witness having left the stand, it was then the turn of the counsel to give their legal arguments, and precedents in German, British, U.S., and international law were all cited in defense of the accused.

Once the defense closed, the judge-advocate gave a carefully balanced summary of the evidence and the law in the case, following which the court closed to deliberate. About 40 minutes later, the court reopened, and the president announced the findings: All five men were guilty of the offense as charged. The court then heard evidence in mitigation of sentence and then retired to consider sentence, for which the War Crimes Tribunal Regulations offered: death (by hanging or shooting); imprisonment for life or any lesser term; confiscation of property; or a fine. The last three required a simple majority of the president and six members, but a death sentence required the concurrence of two-thirds of the members.

---

The threat profile is completely different. This is not a surviving couple of Taliban soldiers hiding under a bush after an Apache ambushes their convoy. Those guys would have returned to the fight as quickly as they could.

The guys on these boats are mules. They are usually fishermen who are paid a bunch of money to go from point A to point B, most are not even involved with the cartels other than just being paid for this one task. Clinging to the burning wreckage of a boat, these guys were no longer a threat to the United States. Pick them up, get some intel, charge them.

Maybe I missed some details along the way then. I thought the anger over this was because a second shot was taken because two of the guys didn't die in the first shot.

So, this is more about the overall legality of this entire operation to bomb these boats?

YouBet said:

---

Don't even understand why this is a topic. You aren't only allowed 1 shot when you go after these guys.

My response would have been: "We didn't get everyone with the first shot so we took another one to make sure."

What's the problem?

---

This is just the latest, well coordinated, hit piece to go after Trump.

- US starts blowing up drug boats.
- Someone at a three letter agency leaks select info to the Democrats and Washington Compost.
- Democrats put out their "ignore Trump's orders" video.
- Compost puts out their hit piece claiming the strikes are illegal.
- Mushy Republicans, Democrats, and their NPCs run with it just like they did with Russia, Russia, Russia.

As soon as this burns out, they'll move on to something new, or back to Epstein for a while until they can cook up the next faux-scandal.

nobody gives a damn about the geneva convention except losers. All is fair in love and war.

the anger about this is no different than the outrage over DOGE uncovering all the massive fraud with the foreign aid scam.

YouBet said:

---

Maybe I missed some details along the way then. I thought the anger over this was because a second shot was taken because two of the guys didn't die in the first shot.

So, this is more about the overall legality of this entire operation to bomb these boats?

---

The uproar has been on the second strike…however…you're right all of this is playing out thru the debate of should we be even out there bombing the fast boats as opposed to just arresting them which is what we do everywhere else.

Serious Lee said:

---

nobody gives a damn about the geneva convention except losers. All is fair in love and war.

the anger about this is no different than the outrage over DOGE uncovering all the massive fraud with the foreign aid scam.

---

So the Germans should have executed all Allied POWs in WWII?

Afterburner Podcast reporting the Venezuelan military was raised to "Red Alert" status including their SU-30s and F-16s

supposedly Trump had a call with Maduro demanding he step down and leave the country.

From what Leavitt said, the 2nd strike was to finish destroying the target which is allowed / lawful.

Now maybe there is some nuance to the word "target". Could mean the boat, the drugs, the terrorist.

Keep in mind the drug bales are meant to float and usually have GPS locators. So if a s2nd strike was needed because there was drugs floating, then that seems fine to me too.

Now matter how you slice it, the WaPo article and the "scandal" on this is over. Nothing burgers and such.

LMCane said:

---

Afterburner Podcast reporting the Venezuelan military was raised to "Red Alert" status including their SU-30s and F-16s

supposedly Trump had a call with Maduro demanding he step down and leave the country.

---

He has been pretty dramatic about the entire situation. I had to stop watching his YouTube updates on Venezuela because in every video "the bombers are about to take off."

LMCane said:

---

Afterburner Podcast reporting the Venezuelan military was raised to "Red Alert" status including their SU-30s and F-16s

supposedly Trump had a call with Maduro demanding he step down and leave the country.

---

Leavitt confirmed the call during her presser today.

flown-the-coop said:

---

From what Leavitt said, the 2nd strike was to finish destroying the target which is allowed / lawful.

Now maybe there is some nuance to the word "target". Could mean the boat, the drugs, the terrorist.

Keep in mind the drug bales are meant to float and usually have GPS locators. So if a s2nd strike was needed because there was drugs floating, then that seems fine to me too.

Now matter how you slice it, the WaPo article and the "scandal" on this is over. Nothing burgers and such.

---

We told the Washington Post that this entire narrative was false yesterday.
These people just fabricate anonymously sourced stories out of whole cloth.
Fake News is the enemy of the people. https://t.co/CgpNBfb2gf

— Sean Parnell (@SeanParnellUSA) November 29, 2025

I'm old enough to remember when the admin said the second strike was fake news from legacy media.


Now the story is that it's totally legal.

Perhaps you have not followed. There is nothing illegal about a second strike, so it is fake news to say a second strike was ordered to simply kill survivors.

Absolutely consistent with Hegseth's X post, Trump's comments and Leavitt's presser.

You want there to be some nefarious conspiracy, but its just fake news reporting by CNN and WaPo.

Don't feel so bad about falling for it.

AtticusMatlock said:

---

The threat profile is completely different. This is not a surviving couple of Taliban soldiers hiding under a bush after an Apache ambushes their convoy. Those guys would have returned to the fight as quickly as they could.

The guys on these boats are mules. They are usually fishermen who are paid a bunch of money to go from point A to point B, most are not even involved with the cartels other than just being paid for this one task. Clinging to the burning wreckage of a boat, these guys were no longer a threat to the United States. Pick them up, get some intel, charge them.

---

I love the "victims" you leftists choose to weep over. And the truly innocent and vulnerable ones you ignore and even spit on (metaphorically).

No normal people take you serious, but you'd fit in with doped up liberal soccer moms.

You don't know me. You made some things up about me in your head and got angry. That's not a very healthy way of thinking.

I guess that's how the internet works though - deliberately interpret what someone says into the worst possible form to make yourself angry then respond in some ridiculous over insulting way to make yourself feel better and hope to get some dopamine when others blue star it.

I'd rather have a discussion with some nuance about a complicated issue where there's room for debate about what the proper policy should be, but I suppose that's just me.

AtticusMatlock said:

---

The threat profile is completely different. This is not a surviving couple of Taliban soldiers hiding under a bush after an Apache ambushes their convoy. Those guys would have returned to the fight as quickly as they could.

The guys on these boats are mules. They are usually fishermen who are paid a bunch of money to go from point A to point B, most are not even involved with the cartels other than just being paid for this one task. Clinging to the burning wreckage of a boat, these guys were no longer a threat to the United States. Pick them up, get some intel, charge them.

---

Are they fisherman doing this one thing, just mules, simply getting paid?

Or do they have intel and are worthy of being charged (by the way, not sure we actually have jurisdiction to charge them - so they would have to be treated as enemy combatants and sent to Gitmo or similar)?

Or we finish the job.

flown-the-coop said:

---

AtticusMatlock said:

---

The threat profile is completely different. This is not a surviving couple of Taliban soldiers hiding under a bush after an Apache ambushes their convoy. Those guys would have returned to the fight as quickly as they could.

The guys on these boats are mules. They are usually fishermen who are paid a bunch of money to go from point A to point B, most are not even involved with the cartels other than just being paid for this one task. Clinging to the burning wreckage of a boat, these guys were no longer a threat to the United States. Pick them up, get some intel, charge them.

---

Are they fisherman doing this one thing, just mules, simply getting paid?

Or do they have intel and are worthy of being charged (by the way, not sure we actually have jurisdiction to charge them - so they would have to be treated as enemy combatants and sent to Gitmo or similar)?

Or we finish the job.

---

If they're criminals, you arrest and charge them. If they're unlawful enemy combatants, you detain them and send them to Gitmo. If they're neither, you capture them, then release them (you know, what we did after later strikes).

flown-the-coop said:

---

AtticusMatlock said:

---

The threat profile is completely different. This is not a surviving couple of Taliban soldiers hiding under a bush after an Apache ambushes their convoy. Those guys would have returned to the fight as quickly as they could.

The guys on these boats are mules. They are usually fishermen who are paid a bunch of money to go from point A to point B, most are not even involved with the cartels other than just being paid for this one task. Clinging to the burning wreckage of a boat, these guys were no longer a threat to the United States. Pick them up, get some intel, charge them.

---

Are they fisherman doing this one thing, just mules, simply getting paid?

Or do they have intel and are worthy of being charged (by the way, not sure we actually have jurisdiction to charge them - so they would have to be treated as enemy combatants and sent to Gitmo or similar)?

Or we finish the job.

---

Because intel has never been known to be wrong…

K2-HMFIC said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

AtticusMatlock said:

---

The threat profile is completely different. This is not a surviving couple of Taliban soldiers hiding under a bush after an Apache ambushes their convoy. Those guys would have returned to the fight as quickly as they could.

The guys on these boats are mules. They are usually fishermen who are paid a bunch of money to go from point A to point B, most are not even involved with the cartels other than just being paid for this one task. Clinging to the burning wreckage of a boat, these guys were no longer a threat to the United States. Pick them up, get some intel, charge them.

---

Are they fisherman doing this one thing, just mules, simply getting paid?

Or do they have intel and are worthy of being charged (by the way, not sure we actually have jurisdiction to charge them - so they would have to be treated as enemy combatants and sent to Gitmo or similar)?

Or we finish the job.

---

Because intel has never been known to be wrong…

---

But we should risk life and limb to fish these crooks out of the water and get their side of the story?

Have you seen a single shred of anything to indicate these were not guys running drugs through the Caribbean?

Pretzel twisting to defend cartel drug runners is simply bizarre to me.

jacketman03 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

AtticusMatlock said:

---

The threat profile is completely different. This is not a surviving couple of Taliban soldiers hiding under a bush after an Apache ambushes their convoy. Those guys would have returned to the fight as quickly as they could.

The guys on these boats are mules. They are usually fishermen who are paid a bunch of money to go from point A to point B, most are not even involved with the cartels other than just being paid for this one task. Clinging to the burning wreckage of a boat, these guys were no longer a threat to the United States. Pick them up, get some intel, charge them.

---

Are they fisherman doing this one thing, just mules, simply getting paid?

Or do they have intel and are worthy of being charged (by the way, not sure we actually have jurisdiction to charge them - so they would have to be treated as enemy combatants and sent to Gitmo or similar)?

Or we finish the job.

---

If they're criminals, you arrest and charge them. If they're unlawful enemy combatants, you detain them and send them to Gitmo. If they're neither, you capture them, then release them (you know, what we did after later strikes).

---

Its better where we left them.

flown-the-coop said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

AtticusMatlock said:

---

The threat profile is completely different. This is not a surviving couple of Taliban soldiers hiding under a bush after an Apache ambushes their convoy. Those guys would have returned to the fight as quickly as they could.

The guys on these boats are mules. They are usually fishermen who are paid a bunch of money to go from point A to point B, most are not even involved with the cartels other than just being paid for this one task. Clinging to the burning wreckage of a boat, these guys were no longer a threat to the United States. Pick them up, get some intel, charge them.

---

Are they fisherman doing this one thing, just mules, simply getting paid?

Or do they have intel and are worthy of being charged (by the way, not sure we actually have jurisdiction to charge them - so they would have to be treated as enemy combatants and sent to Gitmo or similar)?

Or we finish the job.

---

Because intel has never been known to be wrong…

---

But we should risk life and limb to fish these crooks out of the water and get their side of the story?

Have you seen a single shred of anything to indicate these were not guys running drugs through the Caribbean?

Pretzel twisting to defend cartel drug runners is simply bizarre to me.

---

Where did I defend drug runners?

I'm just hearing say we should arrest them like we do everywhere else.

Trump has a more aggressive strategy that is more effective with less risk to American lives and less long term costs.

I, and most proud Americans, understand this trade-off and support it. One day, you may come to realize Trump was again right on this.

Playing patty-cake with narco-terrorists, cartels and hostile dictators is a Biden strategy. Great for a beach trip to Rehoboth, bad for Americans and the lives of our youth.