Whoopi Goldberg recently responded strongly to Alyssa Farah Griffin’s accusations that President Joe Biden lied about his decision to pardon individuals convicted of marijuana offenses.

Griffin, a conservative commentator, had criticized the pardon, claiming that it was misleading and an example of Biden’s dishonesty.

In response, Goldberg, who hosts The View, pushed back against these claims,

arguing that the president’s actions were well-intentioned and in line with his promises to address systemic issues related to drug offenses.

Goldberg defended Biden’s decision, asserting that the pardon was a step in the right direction toward criminal justice reform.

The disagreement came after Griffin suggested that Biden had misrepresented the scope and impact of his marijuana pardon.

She argued that Biden’s claim of providing a blanket pardon to those convicted of marijuana possession was not entirely accurate, as the pardon only applied to federal offenses, leaving out those convicted at the state level. Goldberg, however, rejected Griffin’s interpretation, emphasizing that the president’s actions were part of a broader strategy to reduce the number of people incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses. Goldberg pointed out that although the pardon may not cover every individual affected, it was still a significant move toward righting past wrongs and addressing the disproportionate impact of drug laws on certain communities.

Goldberg also reminded her audience that Biden’s decision was consistent with his campaign promises to tackle criminal justice reform and to provide relief to those impacted by outdated drug laws. While acknowledging that no single action could fully solve the complex issue of mass incarceration, Goldberg stressed the importance of progress, even if it came in incremental steps. She called out Griffin for what she saw as an attempt to undermine Biden’s efforts for political reasons, arguing that the issue should not be politicized. Goldberg’s defense of the president was clear: this pardon, while not perfect, was a positive action toward addressing a longstanding injustice.

In the face of Griffin’s criticism, Goldberg’s response highlighted a key difference in how the two women viewed the issue of marijuana convictions and pardons. While Griffin’s criticism focused on the technicalities of the pardon and the perceived lack of impact, Goldberg focused on the broader societal and historical context. Goldberg’s argument was that the pardon was a meaningful step in addressing racial disparities in the criminal justice system, especially in relation to drug laws that have disproportionately affected Black and Brown communities. For Goldberg, the action was not just about the number of people directly affected, but about making a statement on the need for reform.

Ultimately, Goldberg’s response to Griffin’s critique was a powerful reminder of the complexities surrounding political actions and their impact. While Griffin may have viewed Biden’s pardon as a failed promise, Goldberg saw it as part of a larger movement toward criminal justice reform. Their disagreement reflected the broader national debate over the effectiveness and scope of presidential pardons and their ability to address systemic issues. Despite their differing perspectives, Goldberg’s pushback underscored the importance of having nuanced discussions about policy decisions, especially those related to justice and equity.