Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, December 02, 2025

"And it gives me no pleasure to say what I'm about to say because I worked with Pete Hegseth for seven or eight years at Fox News. This is an act of a war crime, ordering survivors who the law requires be rescued instead to be murdered. There's absolutely no legal basis for it," Napolitano continued, adding: Everybody along the line who did it, from the Secretary of Defense to the admiral to the people who actually pulled the trigger should be prosecuted for a war crime for killing these two people.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Newsmax Legal Analyst Andrew Napolitano Destroys Pete Hegseth in Stunning Commentary: 'Should Be Prosecuted for a War Crime!'

[image or embed]

-- Mediaite (@mediaite.com) Dec 2, 2025 at 12:46 PM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Yes, he should. And Trump. Both of them know it, and both of them understand that keeping in power is the best way to avoid justice.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2025-12-02 03:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#1

True. Though it may be that everyone other than DJT himself finds out they don't have the same Rwing SC protections that he does. They may wind up in prison while he becomes the next Pres of Israel.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2025-12-02 08:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

When a Newsmax legal analyst is calling it a war crime, Kegbreath is in trouble.

#3 | Posted by anton at 2025-12-02 08:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Pete Hegseth, the US defense secretary, told soldiers under his command in Iraq to ignore legal advice about when they were permitted to kill enemy combatants under their rules of engagement.

Hegseth writes that in explaining the rules of engagement, the JAG officer "used the example of an identified enemy holding a rocket-propelled grenade", asking Hegseth's platoon: "Do you shoot at him?'"

"And my guys were like, Hell, yeah, we light him up,'" Hegseth writes.

According to Hegseth, the JAG officer responded: "Wrong answer, men. You are not authorized to fire at that man, until that RPG becomes a threat. It must be pointed at you with the intent to fire. That makes it a legal and proper engagement.'"

Hegseth writes that in response: "We sat in silence, stunned."

He then instructed his men to ignore the legal advice."

www.theguardian.com

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2025-12-02 09:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"He then instructed his men to ignore the legal advice."

I wonder if any Republicans, especially Republican Veterans, would like to say if Hegseth gave his men an illegal order.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-12-02 10:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort