5 ms·

So, who loses money here and why aren't they upset? And are they important enough to worry the president. Those of us without stock aren't direct victims here,

by ptaffs 1y ago

So, who loses money here and why aren't they upset? And are they important enough to worry the president. Those of us without stock aren't direct victims here, but someone must be. Bosch is mentioned in one story, I wonder what they're doing. My observation is lots of friends of the president are being forgiven crime, such as the J6ers, who if you believe the documentaries were violent toward the police, but the police aren't minding the pardons?

edot 1y ago
Former shareholders, whoever currently holds the assets of the company as Nikola is in bankruptcy. Unless those people buy influence, they’re worthless to the current admin. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/19/us/politics/sec-trump-clemency.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/19/us/politics/sec-trump-cle... Each of the above guys did the smart thing of buying influence (Milton retained the attorney general’s brother as his lawyer, for example). In the past you’d have to hide that better, but now it’s out in the open. One of the guys mentioned in the article is now cleared to work on his new crypto venture. Of course. Edit: not to “both sides” this, but it is interesting and mentioned in that NYT article that Biden pardoned a guy involved in a multi-billion dollar ponzi after serving 10 years (with 10 to go). Found an article from 2008 showing that the Bidens were linked with the firm. Not as direct of a quid pro quo but more the standard back scratching … https://www.reuters.com/article/business/stanford-reportedly-had-links-to-fund-run-by-bidens-idUSTRE51N0VC/ https://www.reuters.com/article/business/stanford-reportedly...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- mikeyouse 1y ago
  Commuting the remaining 4 years of a 17 year sentence (based on an 85% federal minimum) and leaving the financial penalties intact for someone who apparently had jointly marketed a hedge fund 20 years prior with a family member isn’t remotely the same as preemptively pardoning someone to save them $200M in fines and all prison time after they gave your campaign $2M.
  - renewiltord 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - mikeyouse 1y ago
      Insanely unethical worldview. My actual ‘take’ is that people should pay for the crimes they commit and bribing officeholders to avoid repercussions for criminal behavior is very bad and extraordinarily corrosive to democratic rule. It’s a common parlor trick to talk in the abstract about things like this to avoid the magnitude of the corruption. But to be clear, the actual comparison here is a multimillion dollar bribe to save almost $200M in penalties from a convicted fraud - and someone who had served 13 years in Federal prison having the last 4 years of their imprisonment commuted, but having all of their other post-sentence restrictions and fines remain in place - with absolutely no benefit to the President who commuted that sentence. So, no, I reject that these two are remotely comparable cases. Regardless the propriety of pardon power in general.
      - renewiltord 1y ago
        Doing a favor to a friend of the family is definitely worse than making it available to all. Far more corrosive to society for institutional nepotism to be considered better than payment. Nepotism is definitely more unethical.
    - mindslight 1y ago
      Edgelord as hard as you can. Pretending to be above it won't save you from societal destruction.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      > But I think if the office of the President is selling pardons it's better they do that with money in the open than with backslapping behind closed doors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma What if we didn't let Presidents sell pardons?
      - 1y ago
mindslight 1y ago
Trump is a master in captivating people to cast aside their values and go all in for Dear Leader. I bet many of the people who were conned are still supporters, and eagerly asking for another serving of Kool-aid. One of the most glaring examples of the effect is how in his previous term he led all of all of his supporters to the opposite side of a clear second amendment issue - the summary execution of Breonna Taylor in retaliation for Kenneth Walker's Constitutionally-protected act of night time home defense. This is one of the exact situations the NRA and wider gun lobby always invokes to rally support, and yet they just completely discarded it in favor of cheering on the jackbooted home invaders that came to make those "cold dead hands". I'm just waiting to see where Trump's current gun control push is going to go. Gun registration/prohibition for "trans, foreign-looking people, liberals, antifa hiding under your children's beds, etc", but really anyone and everyone who might have some semblance of a spine. These cultists really have no values left.

by ptaffs 1y ago

edot 1y ago

Former shareholders, whoever currently holds the assets of the company as Nikola is in bankruptcy. Unless those people buy influence, they’re worthless to the current admin. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/19/us/politics/sec-trump-clemency.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/19/us/politics/sec-trump-cle... Each of the above guys did the smart thing of buying influence (Milton retained the attorney general’s brother as his lawyer, for example). In the past you’d have to hide that better, but now it’s out in the open. One of the guys mentioned in the article is now cleared to work on his new crypto venture. Of course. Edit: not to “both sides” this, but it is interesting and mentioned in that NYT article that Biden pardoned a guy involved in a multi-billion dollar ponzi after serving 10 years (with 10 to go). Found an article from 2008 showing that the Bidens were linked with the firm. Not as direct of a quid pro quo but more the standard back scratching … https://www.reuters.com/article/business/stanford-reportedly-had-links-to-fund-run-by-bidens-idUSTRE51N0VC/ https://www.reuters.com/article/business/stanford-reportedly...

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
mikeyouse 1y ago
Commuting the remaining 4 years of a 17 year sentence (based on an 85% federal minimum) and leaving the financial penalties intact for someone who apparently had jointly marketed a hedge fund 20 years prior with a family member isn’t remotely the same as preemptively pardoning someone to save them $200M in fines and all prison time after they gave your campaign $2M.
- renewiltord 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - mikeyouse 1y ago
    Insanely unethical worldview. My actual ‘take’ is that people should pay for the crimes they commit and bribing officeholders to avoid repercussions for criminal behavior is very bad and extraordinarily corrosive to democratic rule. It’s a common parlor trick to talk in the abstract about things like this to avoid the magnitude of the corruption. But to be clear, the actual comparison here is a multimillion dollar bribe to save almost $200M in penalties from a convicted fraud - and someone who had served 13 years in Federal prison having the last 4 years of their imprisonment commuted, but having all of their other post-sentence restrictions and fines remain in place - with absolutely no benefit to the President who commuted that sentence. So, no, I reject that these two are remotely comparable cases. Regardless the propriety of pardon power in general.
    - renewiltord 1y ago
      Doing a favor to a friend of the family is definitely worse than making it available to all. Far more corrosive to society for institutional nepotism to be considered better than payment. Nepotism is definitely more unethical.
  - mindslight 1y ago
    Edgelord as hard as you can. Pretending to be above it won't save you from societal destruction.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    > But I think if the office of the President is selling pardons it's better they do that with money in the open than with backslapping behind closed doors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma What if we didn't let Presidents sell pardons?
    - 1y ago

mindslight 1y ago

Trump is a master in captivating people to cast aside their values and go all in for Dear Leader. I bet many of the people who were conned are still supporters, and eagerly asking for another serving of Kool-aid. One of the most glaring examples of the effect is how in his previous term he led all of all of his supporters to the opposite side of a clear second amendment issue - the summary execution of Breonna Taylor in retaliation for Kenneth Walker's Constitutionally-protected act of night time home defense. This is one of the exact situations the NRA and wider gun lobby always invokes to rally support, and yet they just completely discarded it in favor of cheering on the jackbooted home invaders that came to make those "cold dead hands". I'm just waiting to see where Trump's current gun control push is going to go. Gun registration/prohibition for "trans, foreign-looking people, liberals, antifa hiding under your children's beds, etc", but really anyone and everyone who might have some semblance of a spine. These cultists really have no values left.