The people has spoken.  They were not happy with the way the government was run for 4 years.

If anything, Trump is bound to do better than his first administration, which was run pretty well considering he was a political outsider. 

I guess some people look at a half filled cup differently.  We should look to the future with optimism.

What happens happens.  We hold people accountable.

Trump will be held no differently.  Nobody has a crystal ball, although some liberals are already predicting the end of the world.  For who?  Them?

A wise fictional shaolin master priest once said on TV:  "Be patient, grasshopper....."

To me Trump is a mixed bag. I do think he wants to actually improve things and I think he will improve a number of things in this country but I also think he has no problem breaking rules, customs, and crossing ethical boundaries. I think he wants to drain the swamp of his opponents and fill it back with his own guys so he can do what he wants. Some of that may mean he can do good things but it can also mean he can get away with bad things. Kash Patel seems such a Trump loyalist and conspiracy theorist I have to wonder if he wouldn't just squash anything in the DOJ coming up against Trump. Yes I know there are workarounds if Patel is that corrupt but that's not the point.

I am not one to predict doom and gloom, I will react to things as they happen but I really don't trust that the swamp is being cleaned, it is just being replaced by a different swamp. I am not saying all of his picks will be in this manner

To me Trump is a mixed bag. I do think he wants to actually improve things and I think he will improve a number of things in this country but I also think he has no problem breaking rules, customs, and crossing ethical boundaries. I think he wants to drain the swamp of his opponents and fill it back with his own guys so he can do what he wants. Some of that may mean he can do good things but it can also mean he can get away with bad things. Kash Patel seems such a Trump loyalist and conspiracy theorist I have to wonder if he wouldn't just squash anything in the DOJ coming up against Trump. Yes I know there are workarounds if Patel is that corrupt but that's not the point.

I am not one to predict doom and gloom, I will react to things as they happen but I really don't trust that the swamp is being cleaned, it is just being replaced by a different swamp. I am not saying all of his picks will be in this manner

Trump won the mythical National Popular vote as well as the Constitutionally defined electoral college.  In short, Trump has a mandate to do the things he promised to the people who elected him.

That means he is absolutely justified in replacing anyone who disagrees with his plans and policies.  The people he chooses are not "loyalists."  They merely share the same ideals and goals as President Trump.

Just because someone is in agreement with Trump doesn't make them a loyalist.  It makes them better than the Democrats who followed their leadership and covered up Biden's mental state all these years when they knew it was a lie.  The border crisis is another catastrophe that the media and BIDEN LOYALISTS continually lied about even existing until close to the election.

Choose your terms more carefully.  I don't see Trump leading an army of mindless drones.  I see people who have a huge task of correcting this massive country's course.  They don't need mutineers working against them from the inside like his first term.

To me Trump is a mixed bag. I do think he wants to actually improve things and I think he will improve a number of things in this country but I also think he has no problem breaking rules, customs, and crossing ethical boundaries. I think he wants to drain the swamp of his opponents and fill it back with his own guys so he can do what he wants. Some of that may mean he can do good things but it can also mean he can get away with bad things. Kash Patel seems such a Trump loyalist and conspiracy theorist I have to wonder if he wouldn't just squash anything in the DOJ coming up against Trump. Yes I know there are workarounds if Patel is that corrupt but that's not the point.

I am not one to predict doom and gloom, I will react to things as they happen but I really don't trust that the swamp is being cleaned, it is just being replaced by a different swamp. I am not saying all of his picks will be in this manner

He has nothing to prove. He already showed what he can do from 16-20.

Your post sounds like that you're calling trump a legal dictator.  1 common thing with dictatorship is that the people get screwed. From 16-20, regardless of how u felt about Trump, you did better.  I know 1 person who was afraid her husband was going to be stop loss from getting out of the Army cause Trump was going to start WW3.

Trump won the mythical National Popular vote as well as the Constitutionally defined electoral college.  In short, Trump has a mandate to do the things he promised to the people who elected him.

That means he is absolutely justified in replacing anyone who disagrees with his plans and policies.  The people he chooses are not "loyalists."  They merely share the same ideals and goals as President Trump.

Just because someone is in agreement with Trump doesn't make them a loyalist.  It makes them better than the Democrats who followed their leadership and covered up Biden's mental state all these years when they knew it was a lie.  The border crisis is another catastrophe that the media and BIDEN LOYALISTS continually lied about even existing until close to the election.

Choose your terms more carefully.  I don't see Trump leading an army of mindless drones.  I see people who have a huge task of correcting this massive country's course.  They don't need mutineers working against them from the inside like his first term.

I wouldn't consider 49.8% vs 48.3%  (1.5% difference) a mandate personally either way I agree his winning means he gets to try and implement his plan, I am not suggesting he has no right to replace who he wants to replace. I just don't think his plan is some morally/ethical righteous one, I think Trump does what is good for Trump and sometimes that also is good for the country.

Kash Patel making a child's book about Hillary Queenton trying to harm King Trump, to me, goes beyond just having a shared belief in how to improve the country. However I do take your point that having shared goals doesn't mean one is a loyalist.

He has nothing to prove. He already showed what he can do from 16-20.

Your post sounds like that you're calling trump a legal dictator.  1 common thing with dictatorship is that the people get screwed. From 16-20, regardless of how u felt about Trump, you did better.  I know 1 person who was afraid her husband was going to be stop loss from getting out of the Army cause Trump was going to start WW3.

Policy and decision wise I took issue with some of the things he did during his first term but overall he was quite decent. It is his leadership that is the real problem.

I wouldn't consider 49.8% vs 48.3%  (1.5% difference) a mandate personally either way I agree his winning means he gets to try and implement his plan, I am not suggesting he has no right to replace who he wants to replace. I just don't think his plan is some morally/ethical righteous one, I think Trump does what is good for Trump and sometimes that also is good for the country.

Kash Patel making a child's book about Hillary Queenton trying to harm King Trump, to me, goes beyond just having a shared belief in how to improve the country. However I do take your point that having shared goals doesn't mean one is a loyalist.

A mandate doesn't conform to your opinion of what percentage of votes are needed.  Did you not even see how i described the national popular vote as mythical?  That's because the electoral college was created precisely so there would be no national popular vote to consider.  When you look at where the votes were cast on a map, it's obvious that if the EC never existed, a few massively populated states would be deciding every election.

Trump won 307 electoral votes to Kamala's 226.  That's 58% to 42%. Ten percentage points in the only election total that counts is a mandate in my book.  It's also significant to realize that Trump won ever single swing state, including the ones that were supposedly part of the Blue Wall that normally prevents Republicans from winning.

So, whether or not you decide what number of popular votes are needed for a mandate is immaterial.  That total is anecdotal and carries no weight in elections.

And if Trump only did what was good for Trump, he'd never have run again so he wouldn't have had to endure all the weaponized agencies and courts coming after him to prevent a second term.. He also would not have donated his entire salary his first term, and i'll bet he's planning the same in the 2nd.

i'm glad you agree about the Loyalist BS the Dems in DC are feeding the MSM.  They tried to use that against him in the first term, but Trump unfortunately for his own good left too many deep state Swamp loyalists in their positions.  I think he learned from that mistake, which is why he's trying hard to fill as many high priority cabinet positions as quickly as possible.  Last time his nominations were slow-rolled, which is why he's already said he'd use recess appointments if necessary.  All the Senate needs to do is take a reasonable look at each nominee and vote to approve them if nothing glaringly pops up to disqualify them.  The Dems are already trying to Kavanaugh his DoD pick, saying he's accused of sexual assault and being an alcoholic.  Pete H. is giving up a massive income at Fox to continue serving his country, not that he hasn't served it enough already. 

In my opinion, it's more important for Trump to pick a team that can work together than it would be to try and appease both sides of the aisle.

You can please some of the people all of the time,
and you can please all of the people some of the time, 
but, you can't please all of the people all of the time.

(rephrasing of the "fool some of the people" quote)

Policy and decision wise I took issue with some of the things he did during his first term but overall he was quite decent. It is his leadership that is the real problem.

Examples?

Policy and decision wise I took issue with some of the things he did during his first term but overall he was quite decent. It is his leadership that is the real problem.

Seems to me people follow Trump because he is a leader. 

People followed Biden because they wanted to watch a train wreck.

I wouldn't consider 49.8% vs 48.3%  (1.5% difference) a mandate personally either way I agree his winning means he gets to try and implement his plan, I am not suggesting he has no right to replace who he wants to replace. I just don't think his plan is some morally/ethical righteous one, I think Trump does what is good for Trump and sometimes that also is good for the country.

One thing to add. Not only did the Trump-Vance team win the election AND the "popular vote", but the entire election was a Red Wave no matter how you want to dissect it.  Both chambers of Congress are majority GOP next session.  More state governor races were won by Republicans.  Across the board, Republicans were winning in counties that have been staunchly Democrat for many decades.

It's a mandate. Accept it and move on.

A mandate doesn't conform to your opinion of what percentage of votes are needed.  Did you not even see how i described the national popular vote as mythical?  That's because the electoral college was created precisely so there would be no national popular vote to consider.  When you look at where the votes were cast on a map, it's obvious that if the EC never existed, a few massively populated states would be deciding every election.

Trump won 307 electoral votes to Kamala's 226.  That's 58% to 42%. Ten percentage points in the only election total that counts is a mandate in my book.  It's also significant to realize that Trump won ever single swing state, including the ones that were supposedly part of the Blue Wall that normally prevents Republicans from winning.

So, whether or not you decide what number of popular votes are needed for a mandate is immaterial.  That total is anecdotal and carries no weight in elections.

And if Trump only did what was good for Trump, he'd never have run again so he wouldn't have had to endure all the weaponized agencies and courts coming after him to prevent a second term.. He also would not have donated his entire salary his first term, and i'll bet he's planning the same in the 2nd.

i'm glad you agree about the Loyalist BS the Dems in DC are feeding the MSM.  They tried to use that against him in the first term, but Trump unfortunately for his own good left too many deep state Swamp loyalists in their positions.  I think he learned from that mistake, which is why he's trying hard to fill as many high priority cabinet positions as quickly as possible.  Last time his nominations were slow-rolled, which is why he's already said he'd use recess appointments if necessary.  All the Senate needs to do is take a reasonable look at each nominee and vote to approve them if nothing glaringly pops up to disqualify them.  The Dems are already trying to Kavanaugh his DoD pick, saying he's accused of sexual assault and being an alcoholic.  Pete H. is giving up a massive income at Fox to continue serving his country, not that he hasn't served it enough already. 

In my opinion, it's more important for Trump to pick a team that can work together than it would be to try and appease both sides of the aisle.

You can please some of the people all of the time,
and you can please all of the people some of the time, 
but, you can't please all of the people all of the time.

(rephrasing of the "fool some of the people" quote)

Ok, so by your definition, whoever wins, even by just 1 vote, has a mandate? That's fine, I am just saying the significance of having 1.5% more votes should not be made to be bigger than it really is. On top of that, I wouldn't interpret this as inherently being pro-Trump because many of those voters could also just be anti-Harris. We can call it a red wave, I don't really care. Thats just a phrase to hype the story up. In the end it doesn't matter, the winner gets the gold metal, I just don't think the win is that significant when it is by a small margin.

You said: "And if Trump only did what was good for Trump, he'd never have run again so he wouldn't have had to endure all the weaponized agencies and courts coming after him to prevent a second term."

That assumes a limited interpretation of what is good for Trump. For example, Trump running and winning effectively stopped 4 criminal cases against him which is certainly good for him.

I don't subscribe to the "deep state". It is an amorphous boogey man. Sure, there are people in the government who resisted him but that doesn't amount to some big organized cabal as the term deep state suggests.

Hegseth, in my opinion, is not a great choice but that's another topic. I don't find giving up a large salary to be that significant either, trading money for power isn't some proof of good intentions.

I do like his pick for the FDA, Dr. Marty Makary, he is absolutely qualified to do the job. Some of his picks are bad and some of them are good, very much a mixed bag in my opinion.

Ok, so by your definition, whoever wins, even by just 1 vote, has a mandate? That's fine, I am just saying the significance of having 1.5% more votes should not be made to be bigger than it really is. On top of that, I wouldn't interpret this as inherently being pro-Trump because many of those voters could also just be anti-Harris. We can call it a red wave, I don't really care. Thats just a phrase to hype the story up. In the end it doesn't matter, the winner gets the gold metal, I just don't think the win is that significant when it is by a small margin.

You said: "And if Trump only did what was good for Trump, he'd never have run again so he wouldn't have had to endure all the weaponized agencies and courts coming after him to prevent a second term."

That assumes a limited interpretation of what is good for Trump. For example, Trump running and winning effectively stopped 4 criminal cases against him which is certainly good for him.

I don't subscribe to the "deep state". It is an amorphous boogey man. Sure, there are people in the government who resisted him but that doesn't amount to some big organized cabal as the term deep state suggests.

Hegseth, in my opinion, is not a great choice but that's another topic. I don't find giving up a large salary to be that significant either, trading money for power isn't some proof of good intentions.

I do like his pick for the FDA, Dr. Marty Makary, he is absolutely qualified to do the job. Some of his picks are bad and some of them are good, very much a mixed bag in my opinion.

Did i say the popular vote was the measure of a mandate?  I believe I said twice that comparison is irrelevant.

But, keep trying to trap me with those straw arguments.  One day you might catch me snoozing.

And you assume if Trump announced he would not seek another term those cases that got dropped would have been brought regardless.

Ok, so by your definition, whoever wins, even by just 1 vote, has a mandate? That's fine, I am just saying the significance of having 1.5% more votes should not be made to be bigger than it really is. On top of that, I wouldn't interpret this as inherently being pro-Trump because many of those voters could also just be anti-Harris. We can call it a red wave, I don't really care. Thats just a phrase to hype the story up. In the end it doesn't matter, the winner gets the gold metal, I just don't think the win is that significant when it is by a small margin.

You said: "And if Trump only did what was good for Trump, he'd never have run again so he wouldn't have had to endure all the weaponized agencies and courts coming after him to prevent a second term."

That assumes a limited interpretation of what is good for Trump. For example, Trump running and winning effectively stopped 4 criminal cases against him which is certainly good for him.

I don't subscribe to the "deep state". It is an amorphous boogey man. Sure, there are people in the government who resisted him but that doesn't amount to some big organized cabal as the term deep state suggests.

Hegseth, in my opinion, is not a great choice but that's another topic. I don't find giving up a large salary to be that significant either, trading money for power isn't some proof of good intentions.

I do like his pick for the FDA, Dr. Marty Makary, he is absolutely qualified to do the job. Some of his picks are bad and some of them are good, very much a mixed bag in my opinion.

The 4 years is just a pause.  They will go after him again once he's no longer POTUS.  This is the deep states message to anyone who's not in the club or doesn't play ball for their agenda.

Looks like their psyop worked on you since you don't believe in a deep state.

Why is Hegseth not a good choice?

AOC district neighborhood labeled 'Third World' as
migrants clog streets and prostitutes overrun every block

......
Nevertheless, Frías, a former Democrat, has become so enraged by the conditions
that he is running for the Assembly District 39 seat as a Republican in a bid to reclaim
the streets.

The seat is currently held by Cruz, who tells Fox News Digital that a group of elected
officials, separate from Moya, have been meeting with city and state agencies to work
on "safe solutions for quality of life concerns." Cruz has previously called for more
permits to be issued for street vendors, and she has also sponsored legislation to
decriminalize prostitution. Ocasio-Cortez herself has also called on the city to issue
more vendor permits.
......

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/aoc-district-neighborhood-labeled-third-world-as-migrants-clog-streets-and-prostitutes-overrun-every-block/ar-BB1k0boA

But, but, but ..... AOC has no authority or influence at the state and local level. 
Why on Earth would she veer outside her lane and call on the city to do anything?

Weird!!   

AOC district neighborhood labeled 'Third World' as
migrants clog streets and prostitutes overrun every block

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/aoc-district-neighborhood-labeled-third-world-as-migrants-clog-streets-and-prostitutes-overrun-every-block/ar-BB1k0boA

But, but, but ..... AOC has no authority or influence at the state and local level. 
Why on Earth would she veer outside her lane and call on the city to do anything?

Weird!!   

Wait, so someone who supports illegal alien  as their federal job, had it affect their state at the state level?  No way, this cannot happen (sarcasm).

Did i say the popular vote was the measure of a mandate?  I believe I said twice that comparison is irrelevant.

But, keep trying to trap me with those straw arguments.  One day you might catch me snoozing.

And you assume if Trump announced he would not seek another term those cases that got dropped would have been brought regardless.

I am saying that according to your usage of the word, any win is a mandate.

It isn't an argument, I clearly said it was fine if you used the word mandate that way. I just explained my position on the significance of the results.

I consider the possibility that maybe at least some those cases wouldn't have been brought had he not run

The 4 years is just a pause.  They will go after him again once he's no longer POTUS.  This is the deep states message to anyone who's not in the club or doesn't play ball for their agenda.

Looks like their psyop worked on you since you don't believe in a deep state.

Why is Hegseth not a good choice?

Will they go after him when he is 82? Maybe but they have less motivation to since he wouldn't be eligible to run again.

Great circular logic by the way concerning the deep state.

Hegseth seems to have too many skeletons in his closet. Granted the sex assault case is iffy but the email from his own mother is pretty damning. The reports of alcoholism are also a reason for concern. Outside of potential personal problems there is the fact he lacks management experience. He is an experienced soldier of course but that's not quite enough to run the DOD. His stance on pardoning US soldiers convicted of war crimes is concerning as well.

Will they go after him when he is 82? Maybe but they have less motivation to since he wouldn't be eligible to run again.

Great circular logic by the way concerning the deep state.

Hegseth seems to have too many skeletons in his closet. Granted the sex assault case is iffy but the email from his own mother is pretty damning. The reports of alcoholism are also a reason for concern. Outside of potential personal problems there is the fact he lacks management experience. He is an experienced soldier of course but that's not quite enough to run the DOD. His stance on pardoning US soldiers convicted of war crimes is concerning as well.

It's not circular logic.  And yes, they will go after him once his 4 years are done.  Have you been paying attention at all since 2016? (Rhetorical, don't reply as you will use whataboutism).

  I don't know what type of action he saw in Iraq, but many military members and vets standard alcohol consumption can be considered "alcoholism" to a civilian. 

Being an officer, he doesn't lack "management XP".  Maybe you should look up what officers do.

1 guy he helped pardon was Eddie Gallager.   If you read what happened and not just what the news tells you, you would know that Eddie was accused of trying to kill an ISIS prisoner. But, wait for it.  Video shows he was rendering aid with his trauma scissors to cut off the prisoners clothing. His actions were falsely reported as Eddie is an OG seal and the new seals and OG ones have animosity toward each other. He was reported by "new seals". The vid should have ended any disciplinary action, but it didn't as it was a political hit on him. Even when he was detained, he was in the interrogation room for 6 hours alone and not told why he's there. He ended up doing push ups to kill time. Then add in he was in solitary and denied visitations for a very long time. His legal team also shared confidential info with the prosecution, so he had to get another legal team. Luckily, his wife began a GFM and was able to raise funds and get his story on social media.

The pic with the dead ISIS soldier, he wasn't the only one in the pic, but was the only one treated like the above.

So overall, he was being screwed by the Navy, which I'm glad Trump pardoned him.

I didn't get a chance to look up the others who Heg helped pardon, but I am familiar with Eddie's situation.

I am saying that according to your usage of the word, any win is a mandate.

It isn't an argument, I clearly said it was fine if you used the word mandate that way. I just explained my position on the significance of the results.

I consider the possibility that maybe at least some those cases wouldn't have been brought had he not run

I'm glad I have someone like you to tell me what the words i choose mean.   

The mandate was no different than it was for Obama -- Executive, House and Senate under the same party so they have support for the same agenda.

If 5 out of 9 justices rule in favor of a case before the Supreme Court, is that any less of a mandate than 9 of 9? 

All that matters is there was a clear winner, and that the majority of voters made that choice.  Given that the electoral college is designed to negate a popular vote, yet the popular vote in this case agrees with the electoral vote outcome, together they make Trump's victory more decisive.  Having the Senate flipped and the House maintaining a GOP majority adds to that decisiveness.  All those races won by the GOP giving them control of 2 branches of the government is how i define a mandate.  A popular vote alone doesn't do it.

This country has been so divided by the main stream media, social media and politicians, we have to settle on what the simple majority wants as the mandate when they elect their party into congress and the oval office.  Waiting for some arbitrary percentage to hit would be stupid.

p.s. 
In 2020, Biden won the electoral 306-232. 
In 2016, Trump beat Hillary 306-232. 
But in 2024, Trump beat Harris 312-226, more than the winning totals in the previous 2 elections.

Seems like we're far from having another Ronald Reagan landslide with 49 states + DC electing the president with a 525-13 victory. but i guess you'd still find a way to argue that's not a mandate.  That's just what you do.

It's not circular logic.  And yes, they will go after him once his 4 years are done.  Have you been paying attention at all since 2016? (Rhetorical, don't reply as you will use whataboutism).

  I don't know what type of action he saw in Iraq, but many military members and vets standard alcohol consumption can be considered "alcoholism" to a civilian. 

Being an officer, he doesn't lack "management XP".  Maybe you should look up what officers do.

1 guy he helped pardon was Eddie Gallager.   If you read what happened and not just what the news tells you, you would know that Eddie was accused of trying to kill an ISIS prisoner. But, wait for it.  Video shows he was rendering aid with his trauma scissors to cut off the prisoners clothing. His actions were falsely reported as Eddie is an OG seal and the new seals and OG ones have animosity toward each other. He was reported by "new seals". The vid should have ended any disciplinary action, but it didn't as it was a political hit on him. Even when he was detained, he was in the interrogation room for 6 hours alone and not told why he's there. He ended up doing push ups to kill time. Then add in he was in solitary and denied visitations for a very long time. His legal team also shared confidential info with the prosecution, so he had to get another legal team. Luckily, his wife began a GFM and was able to raise funds and get his story on social media.

The pic with the dead ISIS soldier, he wasn't the only one in the pic, but was the only one treated like the above.

So overall, he was being screwed by the Navy, which I'm glad Trump pardoned him.

I didn't get a chance to look up the others who Heg helped pardon, but I am familiar with Eddie's situation.

The deep state is real because they have tricked you into thinking it isn't real is a circular logic argument.

If in 4 years some or all of the cases are continued against Trump then you can say I told you so.

From the reports about Hegseth, the issue wasn't just that he consumed a large amount rather it was about his behavior when he consumed alcohol.

I tried to search how many soldiers would be under the command of a major and I say anything from a few hundred to a thousand. I don't discount this experience at all but it is a bit low on the scale compared to generals/admirals who are, if I understand correctly, usually appointed to the position. This isn't a huge mark against Hegseth but there are going to be other candidates out there with more applicable military experience to choose from.

As for the pardons, I am concerned that he may be too pardon happy. He has previously defended the use of waterboarding and from reading a number of his comments he comes across as an "ends justify the means" type of person which has the risk of justifying bad things in war. He had previously defended the actions of the infamous Blackwater group involving the killing of 17 civilians.  Ultimately each pardon should be judged on its individual merits of course.

The deep state is real because they have tricked you into thinking it isn't real is a circular logic argument.

If in 4 years some or all of the cases are continued against Trump then you can say I told you so.

From the reports about Hegseth, the issue wasn't just that he consumed a large amount rather it was about his behavior when he consumed alcohol.

I tried to search how many soldiers would be under the command of a major and I say anything from a few hundred to a thousand. I don't discount this experience at all but it is a bit low on the scale compared to generals/admirals who are, if I understand correctly, usually appointed to the position. This isn't a huge mark against Hegseth but there are going to be other candidates out there with more applicable military experience to choose from.

As for the pardons, I am concerned that he may be too pardon happy. He has previously defended the use of waterboarding and from reading a number of his comments he comes across as an "ends justify the means" type of person which has the risk of justifying bad things in war. He had previously defended the actions of the infamous Blackwater group involving the killing of 17 civilians.  Ultimately each pardon should be judged on its individual merits of course.

The fact that you had to google how many soldiers fall under command of a major tells me everything you don't know about officers in the military.  Even if he was a O1 (Lt.), he still has to manage, command, lead, etc...So your statement about management XP is wrong.  I would understand if he was an E4 or lower rank. Generals and admirals are not exactly "appointed". You cannot go from a major to a general/admiral.  You must obtain the rank of colonel first. Then it gets political if you're then promoted to general/adm.

Waterboarding is legal under the geneva conventions. So why wouldn't he defend it's legal use?  That's like saying "pete defends the killing of an enemy combatant who was shooting at US soldiers".  Or maybe in your opinion, for enemy interrogations, we should just ask them questions and that's it. No waterboarding, sleep deprivation, temperature control, etc...

Are you reffering to this Blackwater event

https://www.mediamatters.org/pete-hegseth/foxs-pete-hegseth-defends-blackwater-contractors-convicted-murdering-iraqi-civilians

All Pete mentions is tough calls are made in seconds and that the prosecution was political.  Feel free to post more links showing how Pete "defended" them. I've never looked into this, but just googled and clicked on the first link as I don't have time to go into full detail. So you can do it.  I psoted about Gallahager because I did follow his incident closely.

Maybe Pete knows stuff that you haven't researched yet, like Gallagher. 

Why don't you read what I posted about Eddie and lets just assume I am 100% correct and there is no additional info. Would you call Pete's support of Eddie's pardon wrong or that he's pardon happy?