18 ms·

The last two pages (pp. 11 and 12) are a great example of why you shouldn't be an arrogant dumbass towards the government. The SEC quotes his 60 minutes intervi

The last two pages (pp. 11 and 12) are a great example of why you shouldn't be an arrogant dumbass towards the government. The SEC quotes his 60 minutes interview with Leslie Stahl where he says he doesn't respect the SEC. While I think the SEC has a legitimate grievance here, I'm also guessing this is partly vindictive. Play stupid games... And I say all that as a big supporter of Elon generally.

mlindner 8y ago
Government being vindictive would count as evidence against the government, not for it.
CPLX 8y ago
It goes to intent. Typically the law tries to at least somewhat take into account intent, like if someone omits something from a filing by accident or in a deliberate attempt to conceal, for example. Pointing out his statements demonstrates that he's aware of the rules and is choosing not to respect them. That's usually a sign that someone should be on the higher end of the typical punishment range for a given act.
- buboard 8y ago
  so, the intent was not to mislead investors, but to insult the fcc. snowflake committees much
  - joshuamorton 8y ago
    No, the intent is that he doesn't take the secs censure seriously. It helps to address the question of if this was an honest mistake or not, and the judgement will likely take that into account.
    - jacques_chester 8y ago
      The SEC are arguing that civil contempt doesn't require intent. But they also point out that yeah, maybe he's doing it on purpose.
- Derek_MK 8y ago
  Especially in the case of contempt of court. The whole reason why you'd hold someone in contempt is if they are willfully not doing what the court says. The SEC is telling the court "Look, he's literally here talking about how he doesn't respect us. He's willingly doing this."
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jakejarvis 8y ago
The video of the bolded part is even more unbelievable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRNypdYQoWk&t=69 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRNypdYQoWk&t=69

mlindner 8y ago

Government being vindictive would count as evidence against the government, not for it.

CPLX 8y ago

It goes to intent. Typically the law tries to at least somewhat take into account intent, like if someone omits something from a filing by accident or in a deliberate attempt to conceal, for example. Pointing out his statements demonstrates that he's aware of the rules and is choosing not to respect them. That's usually a sign that someone should be on the higher end of the typical punishment range for a given act.

buboard 8y ago
so, the intent was not to mislead investors, but to insult the fcc. snowflake committees much
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  No, the intent is that he doesn't take the secs censure seriously. It helps to address the question of if this was an honest mistake or not, and the judgement will likely take that into account.
  - jacques_chester 8y ago
    The SEC are arguing that civil contempt doesn't require intent. But they also point out that yeah, maybe he's doing it on purpose.
Derek_MK 8y ago
Especially in the case of contempt of court. The whole reason why you'd hold someone in contempt is if they are willfully not doing what the court says. The SEC is telling the court "Look, he's literally here talking about how he doesn't respect us. He's willingly doing this."

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jakejarvis 8y ago

The video of the bolded part is even more unbelievable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRNypdYQoWk&t=69 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRNypdYQoWk&t=69