[samatman]

You can't seriously believe that regulators have completely clean motives and actions.

I'm still getting up to date on what happened here, but corporate malfeasance isn't incompatible with aggressive and even corrupt regulation. In fact my starting place is that both are likely.

What I reject is the claim that the State only steps in and takes action if the party they're investigating has done something wrong. That's absurd.

[dragonwriter]

> You can't seriously believe that regulators have completely clean motives and actions.

Since nothing in the comment you are responding to implies, or even has anything to do with, that, I’m not sure, other than love of pure non-sequitur, you would post that.

[samatman]

> if the company had any interest in making things better the regulator would never have needed to get involved in the first place.

Kind of precludes alternate motives, like "the regulator is captured by existing interests and is prosecuting the company despite the company's sincere intention to make things better".

[dragonwriter]

You are taking that phrase out of the context of the sentence it is in, which obscures the meaning, apparently for the sole purpose of having someone to debate with about something that is completely irrelevant to both the comment you have extracted it from and the issue that comment is addressing.