In a whirl of political theatrics that only Washington could conjure, President Trump has unleashed a series of high-profile pardons and commutations that have sent critics into a tizzy. Among the headline-makers are reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley. Convicted of fraud, the couple were allegedly overburdened by a judicial system that certain voices claim is a weapon against the rich and famous. Meanwhile, the administration doesn’t question their guilt, merely raising eyebrows over their lengthy sentences. It seems they’re taking the age-old adage “it’s not what you know, it’s who you know” to heart.

Critics, unsurprisingly, are stirring the pot with concerns over fairness. They argue that the irony of pardoning wealthy celebrities accused of swindling millions isn’t lost on the public. If stealing over $30 million isn’t worthy of a substantial sentence, then what is? The high-flyers barely had time to trade their designer suits for prison jumpsuits before the pardon pen of the presidency issued their reprieve. Those opposing the pardons are not shy with their cries of injustice, questioning whether serving seven to twelve years for such alleged theft was ever appropriate.

Now, let’s not forget the illustrious list wasn’t exclusive to the reality TV realm. The disgruntled murmurs in Palm Beach, Florida, tell the tale of divers embroiled in a controversial fishy theft case. Public opinion turned their case into a cause célèbre, with many rallying behind their innocence. Interestingly, their pardons were viewed favorably by some, illustrating that not all Trump’s clemency choices leave a bitter taste.

Casting a wider net, the president’s approach to pardons deviates from tradition. Historically, presidents have held off until their last days in office to play their pardon cards. Trump, never one for conventionality, has wielded his powers boldly and frequently, stirring debates about the virtues of his choices. There are even voices who say the selection process looks for signs of rehabilitation and remorse, which, almost paradoxically, becomes a juxtaposition when stacked against the fame and infamy of those pardoned.

At the end of the day, the presidential pardon remains a constitutional right—yet it’s a power that always seems to court controversy. As observers shake their heads and pundits pontificate, the questions remain – are these pardons a testament to justice? Or are they gilded get-out-of-jail-free cards favored by those with deep pockets and strategic connections? As the politicos and the public alike weigh in, one thing is certain: President Trump’s pardons ensure his tenure remains a cocktail of controversy and spectacle.