This was their goal. To instigate an investigation so they can cry, "Look!!! Now it's true!!!" FAFO.

For those who have never researched CIA-orchestrated and backed coups around the globe, you should start looking into how these things kicked off.

Because this is an attempt… pic.twitter.com/FkjtFU3gI1

— CannCon (@CannConActual) November 26, 2025

Wonder if she has heard about Arctic Frost?

will25u said:

---

🚨 BREAKING: It's been revealed that a nonprofit linked to George Soros is fomenting sedition within the military around the same time a "script" went out to Democrat members of Congress urging rebellion within the ranks against President Trump.

There are also links to ANTIFA.… pic.twitter.com/1S4roMD4Vk

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 26, 2025

---

Did this all originate outside the US? If so, I think we have additional grounds for prosecuting that cue-balled *******.

will25u said:

---

This was their goal. To instigate an investigation so they can cry, "Look!!! Now it's true!!!" FAFO.

For those who have never researched CIA-orchestrated and backed coups around the globe, you should start looking into how these things kicked off.

Because this is an attempt… pic.twitter.com/FkjtFU3gI1

— CannCon (@CannConActual) November 26, 2025

---

She's a lying sack of ***** Nobody is using scare tactics to shut her up. Efforts are being made to hold her responsible for her violations of the law and that's the job of the FBI.

CIA gonna CIA.

Bet she regrets saying that crap now. Nah, more likely not.

Might be best that it be abolished and rebooted by now. Seems to be more a force of destabilization than anything else, and that's fundamentally dishonest.

aggiehawg said:

---

Bet she regrets saying that crap now. Nah, more likely not.

---

Sadly - deep down I'll bet she thinks Trump and the National Guard asked for this.

VIDEO - Rep. Adam Smith: Saying Trump Issued Illegal Orders Is a ‘Legitimate Opinion’ @RepAdamSmith @Boris_Sanchez https://t.co/uqBlUi813b

— Grabien (@GrabienMedia) November 26, 2025

Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA) says he's not planning to cooperate with the FBI as they investigate the "Seditious Six" video spearheaded by CIA spook Elissa Slotkin.

"I'm not planning to sit down for a voluntary interview. No." pic.twitter.com/FCspxO84IA

— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) November 27, 2025

Why not? He did nothing wrong, right…?

Problem here is they/these Senators might have been right about the illegal orders. The speed boat attacks have always been on shaky ground, but ordering the killing of survivors is definitely not legal within the rule of armed conflict and Geneva conventions.

Not sure a presidential pardon would even hold water if an international war crimes tribunal were to take place and all involved were handed over. Terrible situation for our service members and government, but this news story coincides with the theater commander's resignation…who probably had a huge problem with the orders given by Hegseth.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/11/28/hegseth-ordered-second-strike-kill-caribbean-boat-survivors-report.html

The linked article paints a grim picture but it relies on an unnamed source so consider me skeptical.

Also, killing survivors of an attack is legal under the Geneva Convention if they are still taking part in hostilities.

GMaster0 said:

---

Problem here is they/these Senators might have been right about the illegal orders. The speed boat attacks have always been on shaky ground, but ordering the killing of survivors is definitely not legal within the rule of armed conflict and Geneva conventions.

Not sure a presidential pardon would even hold water if an international war crimes tribunal were to take place and all involved were handed over. Terrible situation for our service members and government, but this news story coincides with the theater commander's resignation…who probably had a huge problem with the orders given by Hegseth.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/11/28/hegseth-ordered-second-strike-kill-caribbean-boat-survivors-report.html

---

Illegal for civilians of the government to order, or a commander in the field? (Not ask if ethical or moral, just legality). We did it in WW II. Possibly for similar reasons -- a perception they could get to shore and rejoin the war effort. That seems not have come up much, but there were notable exceptions.

CheeseSndwch said:

---

The linked article paints a grim picture but it relies on an unnamed source so consider me skeptical.

Also, killing survivors of an attack is legal under the Geneva Convention if they are still taking part in hostilities.

---

Last I checked holding on to a piece of boat like Rose & Jack doesn't qualify for "participating in hostilities."

CheeseSndwch said:

---

The linked article paints a grim picture but it relies on an unnamed source so consider me skeptical.

Also, killing survivors of an attack is legal under the Geneva Convention if they are still taking part in hostilities.

---

This doesn't help the government's claim when they fished two survivors of another attack out of the water and sent them back.

Is there evidence of that occurring or is that just hyperbole?

CheeseSndwch said:

---

Is there evidence of that occurring or is that just hyperbole?

---

According to WaPo there's video of it.

Which is why SASC just made this joint announcement:

News, a very big deal: Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) issues statement w/ top SASC Dem Jack Reed vowing “vigorous oversight” of Hegseth’s “kill them all” order — after Hegseth dismissed WaPo story earlier as “fake news.” https://t.co/AQNHWalkHS pic.twitter.com/wxIlDQM1gw

— Andrew Desiderio (@AndrewDesiderio) November 29, 2025

Wonder what was used to justify the depth charging of survivors in sea off Truk and Leyte in 1944. Problem is that was during a declared war. Yet Hegseth might look to that as far as the whole illegal orders controversy and this trap being set. But is this even something the public wants. That's a horse of a different color.

titan said:

---

Wonder what was used to justify the depth charging of survivors in sea off Truk and Leyte in 1944. Problem is that was during a declared war. Yet Hegseth might look to that as far as the whole illegal orders controversy and this trap being set. But is this even something the public wants. That's a horse of a different color.

---

As a reminder, we tried IJN and IJA for shooting defenseless survivors.

Declared war or not, this is drilled into service members with every LOAC brief.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

titan said:

---

Wonder what was used to justify the depth charging of survivors in sea off Truk and Leyte in 1944. Problem is that was during a declared war. Yet Hegseth might look to that as far as the whole illegal orders controversy and this trap being set. But is this even something the public wants. That's a horse of a different color.

---

As a reminder, we tried IJN and IJA for shooting defenseless survivors.

Declared war or not, this is drilled into service members with every LOAC brief.

---

Oh, know it well. I am talking about our actions. What legal code was cited. There must have been a distinction because we did try a few real over top examples. So there must have been a line like this one where to a point, `preventing rescue to go on' was judged not the same as a Malmedy.

titan said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

titan said:

---

Wonder what was used to justify the depth charging of survivors in sea off Truk and Leyte in 1944. Problem is that was during a declared war. Yet Hegseth might look to that as far as the whole illegal orders controversy and this trap being set. But is this even something the public wants. That's a horse of a different color.

---

As a reminder, we tried IJN and IJA for shooting defenseless survivors.

Declared war or not, this is drilled into service members with every LOAC brief.

---

Oh, know it well. I am talking about our actions. What legal code was cited. There must have been a distinction because we did try a few real over top examples. So there must have been a line like this one where to a point, `preventing rescue to go on' was judged not the same as a Malmedy.

---

IDK…but this was one of the first strikes that occurred, a few weeks later we ended up rescuing two survivors.

Which happened to be the same day that Holsey resigned…and his resignation is starting to make a lot more sense now.

The entire Venezuela exercise has essentially become an avatar for the realignment of American foreign policy around a new Roosevelt Corollary…but this is running into headwinds in DC from people who think it takes away from China and other threats.

Timeline of a deep state hit:

A) a JSOC kill strike is ordered on an authorized target. Not a capture strike, a kill strike - President Obama was quite fond of them btw - 500+ to his name, including Americans.

B) the story is leaked. A leak from JSOC? Probably not - the leak is… pic.twitter.com/W0x833QadK

— TimOnPoint (@TimOnPoint) November 29, 2025

Rapier108 said:

---

VIDEO - Rep. Adam Smith: Saying Trump Issued Illegal Orders Is a ‘Legitimate Opinion’ @RepAdamSmith @Boris_Sanchez https://t.co/uqBlUi813b

— Grabien (@GrabienMedia) November 26, 2025

---

Did that demented liar provide any evidence to support his insane opinion?

will25u said:

---

Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA) says he's not planning to cooperate with the FBI as they investigate the "Seditious Six" video spearheaded by CIA spook Elissa Slotkin.

"I'm not planning to sit down for a voluntary interview. No." pic.twitter.com/FCspxO84IA

— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) November 27, 2025

---

Hope law enforcement now has all your communications between your fellow minions on the video.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

CheeseSndwch said:

---

The linked article paints a grim picture but it relies on an unnamed source so consider me skeptical.

Also, killing survivors of an attack is legal under the Geneva Convention if they are still taking part in hostilities.

---

Last I checked holding on to a piece of boat like Rose & Jack doesn't qualify for "participating in hostilities."

---

Next you might claim that driving around in a boat full of drugs in the open ocean is not participating in hostilities.

Democrats carrying water for drug cartels.

Pete is playing too fast and opening his mouth on things that don't matter. Second strike incident is going to be a problem if he actually said what is claimed. He also messed up any investigation into the seditious video bunch with unlawful command influence. You keep your mouth shut while directing the investigation. It's like he lacks a good attorney to keep him from opening his mouth unnecessarily.

Fdsa said:

---

Pete is playing too fast and opening his mouth on things that don't matter. Second strike incident is going to be a problem if he actually said what is claimed. He also messed up any investigation into the seditious video bunch with undue command influence. You keep your mouth shut while directing the investigation. It's like he lacks a good attorney to keep him from opening his mouth unnecessarily.

---

What investigation? He already provided the rationale which is a command decision not something for the judiciary nor congress to investigate. They can work on legislation and passing bills, not whether Trump used the correct place settings for a state dinner or whether Hegseth passed gas without passing out crackers.

The decision was made to fully eliminate the hostiles in order to protect broader operational security. The individuals were actively engaged in hostile terrorists activities against these United States and they were eliminated.

Trump and Peter are both on the right side of the law and the right side of history here. Cheer them on. This is America.

For the unlawful command influence, I'm talking about the investigation on Mark Kelly…court martial will be difficult there now.

How? If anything, it strengthens it.