3 ms·

I'm surprised how swiftly the SEC is moving, could they really build a strong case that quickly?

by jaimex2 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ilikehurdles 8y ago
Maybe the evidence is very clear and easy to get.
rayiner 8y ago
By now, the SEC has already investigated this throughly. They’ve interviewed relevant witnesses, reviewed relevant documents, etc. The case is straightforward (the tweet is public record, interviews would quickly reveal there was no deal in the works). So the SEC has what it needs; the case will turn on Musk’s defenses. Since the ball is in his court, there is no reason for the SEC not to move forward quickly.
treis 8y ago
If you make a statement on Twitter and then admit it wasn't true in a blog post you make it a pretty easy case to prove.
jcranmer 8y ago
Musk has explicitly admitted that the "funding secured" was actually based on conversations with the Saudi sovereign fund, which appear to have been at a stage where they were still negotiating conditions (such as building a Tesla plant in Saudi Arabia). All the SEC has to do is show that the conversations with the Saudi fund did not constitute a verbal agreement to any reasonable observer (which means, were Musk to believe that he had a verbal agreement, he was being reckless in that belief). This isn't a case where someone committed a crime and carefully tried to hide their actions; this isn't a case that hinges on misunderstandings of the law. It is a case where someone essentially said "this is a final decision" and later clarified "by final, I really meant this was in preliminary stages, but I'm confident it can be finalized quickly."
- Retric 8y ago
  'Considering' does not suggest the deal was final. 'Secured' does. That's a lot of ambiguity for the average layperson on a jury. I assume the SEC has a strong case, but this stuff is nuanced.
philipodonnell 8y ago
Based on the details, it seems like there was basically zero substantive discussions behind his tweet, so no need for a deep investigation if everyone you call says "yeah he had nothing".
matz1 8y ago
I'm not surprised if SEC is corrupt like hell.

I'm surprised how swiftly the SEC is moving, could they really build a strong case that quickly?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ilikehurdles 8y ago

Maybe the evidence is very clear and easy to get.

rayiner 8y ago

By now, the SEC has already investigated this throughly. They’ve interviewed relevant witnesses, reviewed relevant documents, etc. The case is straightforward (the tweet is public record, interviews would quickly reveal there was no deal in the works). So the SEC has what it needs; the case will turn on Musk’s defenses. Since the ball is in his court, there is no reason for the SEC not to move forward quickly.

treis 8y ago

If you make a statement on Twitter and then admit it wasn't true in a blog post you make it a pretty easy case to prove.

jcranmer 8y ago

Musk has explicitly admitted that the "funding secured" was actually based on conversations with the Saudi sovereign fund, which appear to have been at a stage where they were still negotiating conditions (such as building a Tesla plant in Saudi Arabia). All the SEC has to do is show that the conversations with the Saudi fund did not constitute a verbal agreement to any reasonable observer (which means, were Musk to believe that he had a verbal agreement, he was being reckless in that belief). This isn't a case where someone committed a crime and carefully tried to hide their actions; this isn't a case that hinges on misunderstandings of the law. It is a case where someone essentially said "this is a final decision" and later clarified "by final, I really meant this was in preliminary stages, but I'm confident it can be finalized quickly."

Retric 8y ago
'Considering' does not suggest the deal was final. 'Secured' does. That's a lot of ambiguity for the average layperson on a jury. I assume the SEC has a strong case, but this stuff is nuanced.

philipodonnell 8y ago

Based on the details, it seems like there was basically zero substantive discussions behind his tweet, so no need for a deep investigation if everyone you call says "yeah he had nothing".

matz1 8y ago

I'm not surprised if SEC is corrupt like hell.