The Adam Mockler Show - Karoline ADMITS Pete Hegseth’s WORST CRIME on LIVE TV

Episode Date: December 1, 2025

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All right, check this out. Caroline Levitt rapidly lost control of a White House briefing today as question after question poured in about Pete Heggsath's alleged war crimes. Caroline Levitt not only confirms that there was a second strike, therefore confirming there very likely was a war crime, but she also contradicts what Trump said on Air Force One late last night. I'm going to play all of these clips, and I want to show you how Caroline Levitt takes one question about Pete Hexeth, and then spirals it into a 15-minute struggle fest

where question after question after question she deflects in struggles to answer. I mean, she starts it off in this first clip by reading a pre-written note, likely written by the administration's lawyers, to minimize any risk. By the way, make sure you drop a like. Make sure you subscribe below

to join the Machler Media crew. And let's just start with this clip. Caroline Levitt answers a question with a pre-written note and then everything hits the fan. Thank you. Gabe. Thank you, Caroline.

Excuse me. Regarding Venezuela, the President said yesterday that Secretary Hegset had denied that that that reported second strike on an alleged drug vote on September 2nd. The Secretary said to the President that that didn't happen. But to clarify, I just wanted you to clear this up. In his social media post, Secretary Hegset didn't go into details about that strike. He just said U.S. operations in the area were lawful. And he said that the story and media reports were fabricated.

So to be clear, does the administration deny that that second strike happened or did it happen and the administration denies that Secretary Hexat gave the war? The latter is true, game, and I have a statement to read for you here. Wait, wait, before she even reads the statement, she confirmed that the ladder is true. So the second strike did happen, meaning Trump was wrong. She is contradicting Trump. Then she goes into a written statement. Take a lesson. President Trump and Secretary Hegeseth have made it clear that presidentially designated narco-terrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting in accordance with the laws of war.

With respect to the strikes in question on September 2nd, Secretary Hegeseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes. Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated. And I would just add one more point to remind the American public why these lethal strikes are taking place because this administration has designated these narco-terrorists as foreign terrorist organizations. The president has a right to take them out if they are threatening the United States of America and if they are bringing illegal narcotics that are killing our citizens at a record rate, which is what they are doing.

All right, Caroline Levitt just admitted right there that the administration engaged in war crimes, a second strike on people clinging onto a ship. It's interesting, she uses a specific language in accordance with the law of war, but the law of war says you cannot do a second strike when people, non-combatants in particular, are shipwrecked. There's also a new piece of information that Caroline Levitt intentionally added during this pre-written opening statement that was clearly crafted carefully by a lawyer. She says that Admiral Bradley authorized the strike.

He's the one that ordered it, which means she's trying to shirk responsibility down to Admiral Bradley. She's saying, hey, this did happen. She's conceding the war crime likely happened, but she's trying to remove blame from Pete Heggseth. The natural follow-up question that's asked is, so was Admiral Bradley the one that issued this? Take a listen. So that's why you've seen a drastic difference in this administration's policy with respect

to the last, and it's one of the many reasons the American public reelected this president and support this secretary of war in conducting these strikes. So to be clear, to clarify, Admiral Bradley was the one who gave that order for a second strike. And he was well within his authority to do so. And a separate question, the president several days ago said it was his intention. So she admits it right there. She says, yes, but she says it was well within his authority to do so, which it's not. Now, the initial reporting from the Washington Post said that Pete Heggseth made the original order to quote, kill them all, and then downstream another order was made to do the second strike,

which was the truly illegal part. So they can't just direct responsibility down to somebody else. And it's doubly worth pointing out that when Caroline Levitt admits there was a second strike, she is directly contradicting Trump on Air Force One last night, who claimed that Pete Heggseth doesn't know what happened. There wasn't a second strike. And if there was, he wouldn't agree with that. He said, end I quote, I wouldn't have wanted a second strike. The first strike was very lethal. It was fine.

So he's implying a second strike would have been overkill. Now they're admitting there was a second strike. I'm assuming they know that footage will come out soon that really shows a not too pretty picture for the admin. So they're backtracking him.

If there were a second strike that killed the people who made a number of their strike, are you going to have any help? You can imagine, I don't know that that happened. And Pete said he did not want them, he didn't, even though what people were talking about. So we'll look into it. But no, I wouldn't have wanted the second strike.

The first strike was very lethal, it was fine. And if there were two people around, but Pete said that didn't happen. It's hard to hear, but Trump says he wouldn't have wanted a second strike. The first strike was fine. And Pete Hague-Seth said that didn't happen. Well, now they are contradicting that. Caroline Leavitt is then asked as she sips her coffee, why won't the admin confirm or deny whether there were survivors after the first strike? And Caroline Levitt really has no answer.

So much of the concern from the Democrats and Republicans is focused on the survivors. Why won't the administration either confirm or deny or reveal whether or not there were survivors after that initial first strike? And what imminent threat would two survivors pose who were clinging presumably to the wreckage of that vote? Again, as I said, I think you guys are sort of not listening fully to the statement I've provided. Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was totally destroyed and the threat to the narco-terrorists to the United States was eliminated. Dude, you have to be kidding me. She said, I think you guys aren't listening. She smugly goes, I think you guys aren't listening.

Then she goes and reads a pre-written letter from a lawyer to minimize risk. I'm not making this up. Look at her. Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law directing the engagement to ensure the boat was totally destroyed and What is this pre-written shit? You know you're guilty when you can only read off of a script And then as Caroline Levitt is losing control of the entire situation as question after question comes in that she doesn't quite have a good answer for She has to keep looking down at her pre-written statement A reporter asks the bulletproof question the killshot question

She says what law is it that allows no survivors after a strike. Take a listen. Jack. Thank you, Caroline. Following up in Gabe's question, you said that the follow-up strike was lawful. What law is it that allows no survivors? The strike conducted on September 2nd was conducted in self-defense to protect Americans in vital United States interests. She's reading more, dude.

She can only read off of these pre-written statements. That's when you know that you are cooked. The strike was conducted in international waters and in accordance with the law of armed conflict. Okay, she's going to say that multiple times in accordance with the law of armed conflict. The law of armed conflict says that you can't just double tap strikes. Then she's asked more questions. Was there a change in policy after the strike on September 2nd? Basically, what's happening here is that right off the bat, she made the concession that there was a second strike, which contradicts Trump, but supports the original Washington Post report.

This confirmation of a second strike means somebody likely committed a war crime, and Caroline Leavitt has to revert back to pre-written text in order to not, you know, screw herself, the administration, the lawyers, Heggsath, everybody else, just to follow up, just to follow more than she has already. Caroline, just on the administration's policy when it comes to survivors, was there a change in policy after this strike on September 2nd? The Washington Post is reporting that these two survivors were killed after a second strike, but then in October, two people were rescued and returned to Colombia and Ecuador.

So was there a decision that was made to handle survivors differently after these strikes? Not to my knowledge. No. That's all, that's the entire answer she gives, not to my knowledge. She then gets pressed on a separate, but increasingly pertinent issue. The issue of Donald Trump pardoning the former president of Honduras, who is a massive drug trafficker. Or let me rephrase, was a massive drug trafficker. A few years ago, Trump pardoned him.

He brought 500 tons of cocaine in the United States, allowed that to be a massive drug trafficker. allowed that to happen. Caroline Nevik, it's a pretty good question about it. The president several days ago said it was his intention to pardon the former president of Honduras, who was a convicted drug trafficker. And yesterday on Air Force One, the president said that if someone sells drugs in that country, that doesn't mean you arrest the president and put him in jail for the rest of his life. How is that different than what the administration is accusing then as well as Nicolas Maduro? You're cherry picking the president's statement a little bit yesterday, as he also said yesterday, the people of Honduras have highlighted to him how

the former President Hernandez was set up. This was a clear Biden over prosecution. He was the president of this country. He was in the opposition party. He was opposed to the values of the previous administration, and they charged him because he was president of Honduras. There were some other egregious facts that came out during this trial, and I would encourage you to report on them. His court appointed lawyer was only given three weeks to prepare for trial. He shared that his conviction was lawfare by the leftist party who, quote, struck a deal with the Biden Harris administration. So a corrupt administration, the corrupt team of the former Honduran president convinced the Trump administration that the trial was actually corrupt. He said,

look, we're the same. We had a corrupt trial when the reality is the courts found, a jury found that this guy was incredibly dirty, allowed 500 tons of cocaine to be smuggled into the United States, killed people, there were reports that he allowed someone to be chopped up with a machete in order to advance his drug agenda, disgusting stuff, and that is who Trump pardoned. K. Lev, Caroline Levitt has no answers, and I'm going to leave it there. I love you all.

Make sure you're subscribed to the Adam Mockler feed, and peace out.