Trevor Milton's Nikola case dropped by SEC following Trump pardon

Perceived Corruption and Collapse of Norms

• Many see the pardon and SEC retreat as proof the U.S. now operates on “rules for thee, not for me,” with norms and informal constraints on corruption having evaporated.
• Several argue impeachment and party discipline no longer function as checks, making constitutional design flaws (hard-to-amend text, reliance on impeachment) newly dangerous.
• Some claim the U.S. is “beyond rule of law,” especially when politically connected white‑collar offenders receive clemency and regulatory leniency.

Courts, Immunity, and Pardons

• One thread debates a recent Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity: some summarize it as “official acts can’t be illegal or investigated,” others call that an oversimplification but still see the Court as partisan and frequently using the “shadow docket” to shield the administration.
• There’s confusion and anger over the idea that a presidential pardon is being interpreted not just as criminal forgiveness but as “factual innocence” that might erase civil/financial liability.
• Comparisons are drawn to other clemencies (e.g., a large Ponzi scheme sentence commuted under a previous administration) to contrast scale and quid‑pro‑quo clarity.

Nikola, Obvious Tech Nonsense, and Fraud Skills

• The infamous “HTML5 super computer” infotainment quote and the rolling‑downhill demo are cited as signals that Nikola was obviously bogus to anyone technical.
• Discussion focuses on what fraudsters have that honest engineers lack: shameless lying, charisma, “reality distortion fields,” risk tolerance, connections, and often “dark triad” traits.
• Others push back that survivorship bias and investor desire to believe (“second Tesla,” “hydrogen future”) are key enablers.

Victims, Enforcement, and Pay‑to‑Play

• Primary financial losers are former shareholders and current bankruptcy stakeholders; critics note they lack the political leverage of donors and insiders.
• The role of campaign donations and hiring politically connected lawyers is highlighted as de facto “regulatory assistance.”
• Some contrast this outcome with other high‑profile fraud cases (e.g., crypto) where donors backed the “wrong” side and received much harsher treatment.

Broader Political and Cultural Critiques

• Several comments tie this to a broader pattern: fascistic celebration of hypocrisy, impunity for in‑groups, and weaponization of outrage and media noise to exhaust oversight.
• There’s debate over whether the U.S. is acting like a petrostate (politically, if not economically), and comparisons to Norway’s state‑managed oil revenues and stronger institutions.
• Others zoom out further: politics as religion, erosion of trust, information overload, and calls for documentation projects to track the explosion of scandals.

Personal and Strategic Reactions

• Some discuss exit strategies (e.g., emigrating to countries like Australia) as a rational response to perceived democratic backsliding.
• A darker, pragmatic note: if “regulatory assistance” can be bought, future fraudsters are advised (sarcastically) to budget for it.