Article II allows the president to grant pardons for any offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. The presidential pardon power is among the most absolute authorities granted in the Constitution, and President Donald Trump has abused it.

The pardons Trump issued to the 1500 people who took part in the January 6th insurrection have rightfully generated outrage. Those pardons are unprecedented and deeply troubling—particularly in light of the injuries suffered by more than 140 Capitol Hill police officers during the insurrection.

Some have argued the pardons were warranted due to supposed unfair prosecution by the Biden administration. But the Department of Justice handled the cases appropriately: charges were brought, trials were held before judges and juries, and juries found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no evidence federal prosecutors fabricated or suppressed evidence or lied; claims of unfair treatment have not been substantiated.

Even though the videos we have all seen of the insurrection show lawless violence, the White House has stated the insurrectionists were actually “peaceful patriotic protesters.”By pardoning the insurrectionists, Trump shamelessly abandoned and showed no concern for the Capitol police officers.

Beyond the January 6th cases, over half of the other pardons granted were for white-collar crimes committed by business executives, politicians, and a few billionaires. Court-ordered restitution to victims was wiped out, leaving the victims to pursue civil action on their own.

Examples include Trevor Milton, who defrauded investors of $675 million but contributed $1.8 million to Trump's campaign, and Paul Waze, who failed to pay millions in taxes and was pardoned, erasing court-ordered restitution. Other pardons involved individuals connected to Trump's business interests or political allies, raising concerns about the integrity of the process.

The pardon of Juan Orlando Hernández, the former President of Honduras convicted of drug smuggling, is particularly perplexing given its contrast with U.S. actions against other foreign leaders. The underlying motivations remain unclear, and the transparency of the process is lacking.

While questionable pardons are not new, what sets President Trump apart is the sheer volume. President Biden granted 80 pardons, Trump 144 in his first term, Barack Obama 212 over two terms, George W. Bush 189 over two terms, and Bill Clinton 396 over two terms. Trump surpassed all by granting 1500 pardons on his first day in office in his second term.

Other presidents have also issued controversial pardons. Clinton pardoned Mark Rich, whose ex-wife donated sizable sums to Democratic causes, and George W. Bush commuted the sentence of Lewis “Scooter” Libby, convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Liz Oyer of the Department of Justice, who oversaw the pardon process, resigned in protest over controversial Trump’s decisions and is now an outspoken critic of Trump

Today, we are joined by Jeff Wenninger, a retired LAPD Lieutenant, a nationally recognized law enforcement expert and author of “On Thin Ice,” an analysis of how poor leadership and entrenched mindsets have eroded public trust in police.

Good policing requires standardization and training. The lack of standardized training nationwide is evident. Police academies across the nation vary significantly in required training hours, with the national average being about 800 hours. For context, a cosmetology license requires 1,500 hours of training. In contrast, Nordic countries train their police for two to three years and continuously monitor candidates to ensure they possess the necessary characteristics for success.

Often a department’s culture may not align with its standards. Law enforcement policies are only as effective as the culture that enforces them. Training must be assessed, and officers must be held accountable for their actions.

Proper police response requires self-awareness, both of the situation and how an officer’s actions can escalate or de-escalate an incident. Officers must ensure that any force used is proportional to the threat and the severity of the crime. Alternatives to force should always be considered, and training should instill this mindset rather than defaulting to force as the first solution. But there is often a disconnect between policy, practice, and culture—what Jeff refers to as the "policy-practice divide."

Many officers are not fully aware of the legal standards by which their use of force will be judged. Organizations should be responsible for ensuring their officers are not just trained, but competent and able to justify their decisions under stress.

Despite clear guidelines, the culture within some departments may foster a mentality where disobedience is met with excessive force—a “contempt of cop” attitude. This underscores the need for good judgment and accountability, both at the individual and organizational levels. Agencies must hold officers to high standards and not simply defend their actions because they are found to be legally justified.

Post-incident debriefs, modeled after those used by the Blue Angels, are critical for learning and improvement. These debriefs should happen soon after incidents and involve honest self-assessment and peer feedback.

Unfortunately, some leaders undermine trust by publicly defending officers before investigations are complete. True professionalism in law enforcement requires transparency, honest evaluation of incidents, and accountability at every level.

While only about 13% of the nation’s population is Black, the percentage of incarcerated Blacks can be as high as 50 %. The proportion of Black men on death row is significantly higher than that of whites.

Our guest, Courtney Teasley, a criminal defense lawyer, emphasizes the responsibility that defense attorneys have in contributing to incarceration rates. Some lawyers fail to communicate with clients, push plea deals without proper consultation, and neglect to use available court resources or file necessary motions.

This lack of diligence can result in missed opportunities for discovering evidence that could change the outcome of a trial. Courtney stresses that defense lawyers should fight for their clients and not simply “go along to get along,” especially in smaller counties where maintaining good relationships with judges is common practice.

Courtney described the DAMM community—Disproportionately Affected Marginalized Minority—as the primary demographic impacted by incarceration. Systemic factors such as inadequate education in financial literacy, criminal justice literacy, and civics contribute to this problem. Many individuals are not taught their rights or how to hold government officials accountable, nor are they given the tools to pursue financial stability beyond low-wage jobs.

These gaps leave people vulnerable to crimes of poverty and ill-equipped to navigate the legal system if accused. Having financial means, legal knowledge, and civic understanding provides leverage and empowerment, but these advantages are often unavailable in marginalized communities.

Courtney’s initiatives focus on legal literacy, financial literacy, and civics. She teaches these subjects through mock trial programs at high-priority schools and at HBCUs, aiming to address the lack of foundational legal knowledge. Her business, MFN, stands for Mindset, Finesse, and Non-Negotiable Boundaries, and is dedicated to advocacy training and lawyer coaching.

Courtney also discussed the school-to-prison pipeline, which refers to the disproportionate punishment of Black students in schools, which leads to higher rates of suspension and disciplinary actions that can lead to the juvenile justice system.

She advocates for empowering students through education in legal literacy, civics, and financial skills, noting that access to such knowledge and opportunities is often limited. Programs and curricula she develops aim to bridge these gaps and provide students with tools for legal and financial empowerment.

Ultimately, the need for competent, passionate lawyers in criminal defense is critical. The goal is not necessarily to achieve acquittals for all clients, but to ensure the state proves its case and to minimize negative impacts on individuals’ records and communities. Creative solutions, rehabilitation, and strategic partnerships are encouraged to address root causes of crime and support long-term positive outcomes.