82 ms·
As sad as this makes me (because I want Tesla to be wildly successful), I have to agree. This is textbook and brazen stock manipulation, a flat out crime.
by atonse 8y ago
As sad as this makes me (because I want Tesla to be wildly successful), I have to agree. This is textbook and brazen stock manipulation, a flat out crime.
- crankylinuxuser 8y agoIsn't "Opening a civil and criminal investigation" without due process, also direct manipulation as well? Surely, prior to a fault/guilty verdict, running someone through the mud is furtherance of that, no? This reminds me of "perp watches" posed by police departments on Facebook and twitter. No charges, but arrested - and you get to live in the newspaper and social media regardless if you are exonerated. Cause, public shaming? edit: s/peep/perp/
- jchw 8y agoA criminal investigation being opened is literally part of due process.
- pathseeker 8y agoThe big announcement is what OP is referring to.
- aaomidi 8y agoThe big announcement is part of transparency and keeping the US government accountable. There is simply no other way, the only reason this is a big announcement is because Elon is very active on social media.
- _jal 8y agoAllow me a moment to note the irony of complaining about big announcements in this context.
- jchw 8y agoI must've missed something, what I understood from reading the article was simply that there are insider reports of a criminal probe, not that the U.S. government made an announcement of such.
- simias 8y agoWhat are you referring to exactly? Are you talking about this particular investigation? Why do you think due process isn't followed?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- SeanAppleby 8y agoSure, publicity around early investigations in general has inevitable externalities on people who might still be innocent, but how do you think you reach a verdict without going through an investigation?
- crankylinuxuser 8y agoThere's a difference in: "We conduct investigations on a regular basis on a multitude of people over possible perceived wrongdoings." -vs- "We are conducting a thorough investigation on Musk, Tesla, SpaceX because we believe he did something wrong." The first is a non-answer, and puts no blame anywhere. Its their reason to be, so its unsurprising. The second statement itself changes the market the very same way he was claimed to do, and paints him and the companies in a bad light, prior to any finding of fact. I'm arguing for the defense and protection of the accused. By the very definition, they are not guilty/liable UNTIL the court says they are. But this style of bandying around "We're INVESTIGATING ____" Only puts strong implicit blame and guilt on the accused.
- lgeorget 8y agoI guess I'm a bit off-topic but sometimes I really fail to understand the USA culture. You can make the most outrageous and racist comments because of "freedom of expression" but making speculators lose their shit with a couple of tweets is a "textbook crime" for which you should "go to jail".
- stephengillie 8y agoFreedom of expression doesn't mean freedom from consequences - just not from government.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- kasey_junk 8y agoIn this case it’s highly specific to the person doing the statement & the subject of the statement. And it’s not nearly as textbook as the comment implies. But the US has fairly consistent and specific case law on when speech is a crime precisely because freedom of expression was so central to the founding of the country.
- empath75 8y agoYes costing people millions of dollars through securities fraud is a crime.
- rootusrootus 8y agoThe first amendment guarantees freedom of speech, but it has always had limits applied. Fraud is not considered a valid exercise of free speech.
- dx87 8y agoIt's because of the belief that specific acts shouldn't be illegal, just the negative effects caused by those acts. People can say racist things all they want, but if there isn't anyone actually being harmed by it, should they be punished by the government? It's like with Musk, he's not being investigated for a stupid tweet, he's being investigated for a stupid tweet that appears to have been made with the purpose of directly influencing the stock market. Specific acts should only be made illegal if it can be proven that the specific act essentially guarantees that someone will be harmed as a result.