5 ms·

i believe elon’s argument is that the offending tweet didn’t need approval because he believed that he was just restating a projection made on the previous earn

i believe elon’s argument is that the offending tweet didn’t need approval because he believed that he was just restating a projection made on the previous earnings call

cmurf 8y ago
What he believes doesn't matter, it's what he agreed to that matters, and he violated that agreement.
- anoncoward111 8y ago
  Apparently we live in a country where the government can murder thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, deny that it ever happened, and profit off of the destruction. But god help you if you make a tweet that is subjectively incorrect.
  - jacques_chester 8y ago
    The justice system is not single-threaded. It can deal with more than one case at a time.
  - missedthecue 8y ago
    The government profited? I always hear that it cost 6 trillion or something
    - krferriter 8y ago
      government officials and connected firms profited, taxpayers lost out
  - cmurf 8y ago
    If the government does one thing unethical, immoral, or in violation of international law, and that must necessarily result in all contracts being nullified as preposterous in comparison, then it's chaos. What you're describing is an eventual consequence of metastasizing corruption. Wealth does not trickle down, but corruption does.
  - Derek_MK 8y ago
    You can use this argument for literally anything, it means nothing. > Apparently we live in a country where the government can murder thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, deny that it ever happened, and profit off of the destruction. > But god help you if you brutally beat someone to death
    - empath75 8y ago
      To be honest one of the reasons that government malfeasance of the kind that got us into Iraq is so dangerous is that it promotes exactly this kind of cynicism. We’ll be hearing exactly this kind of argument for decades because of the shit trump is getting away with now, and he’s arguing he should get away with it because of the shit Clinton and Bush got away with. It’s off topic, but a culture of law breaking at the top promotes law breaking at all levels of society.
justin66 8y ago
In a contempt hearing centered around violation of the terms of the settlement with the SEC, that's probably not a great argument. It's an error Musk would not have made if he'd simply adhered to the agreement and had a lawyer review what he tweeted.
afastow 8y ago
The SEC saw that argument coming and shot it down completely in their filing: > According to Tesla’s Policy, any edits to a pre-approved Written Communication or even releasing a verbatim pre-approved Written Communication more than two days after it has been pre-approved requires that the pre-approval be reconfirmed. Even if the exact substance of the 7:15 tweet had been pre-approved 20 days before, Musk cannot credibly claim that he thought he was not required to obtain pre-approval again under the plain terms of the Policy. In fact, the written communication in the 7:15 tweet was not pre-approved 20 days earlier or at any time. Musk’s claim that he thought he was simply restating information from the January 30 communications is not credible. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5750664-Show-Cause.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5750664-Show-Cause.h... page 12
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  This tweet was not an edit to a pre-approved communication. That rule is irrelevant. The argument is not "this tweet got approved before, so I can edit it however I want". The argument is "the number is already public information, so I can make a new post mentioning it".
  - sangnoir 8y ago
    > This tweet was not an edit to a pre-approved communication. That is the problem, in a nutshell: it should have been pre-approved - according to the FCC's interpretation of the settlement agreement.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      Maybe. But don't confuse different arguments about why. If the tweet needed pre-approval, it's for a reason entirely different from this quote.
      - rory096 8y ago
        Whether or not it's a valid argument, that does seem to be the SEC's argument here.

i believe elon’s argument is that the offending tweet didn’t need approval because he believed that he was just restating a projection made on the previous earnings call

cmurf 8y ago

What he believes doesn't matter, it's what he agreed to that matters, and he violated that agreement.

anoncoward111 8y ago
Apparently we live in a country where the government can murder thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, deny that it ever happened, and profit off of the destruction. But god help you if you make a tweet that is subjectively incorrect.
- jacques_chester 8y ago
  The justice system is not single-threaded. It can deal with more than one case at a time.
- missedthecue 8y ago
  The government profited? I always hear that it cost 6 trillion or something
  - krferriter 8y ago
    government officials and connected firms profited, taxpayers lost out
- cmurf 8y ago
  If the government does one thing unethical, immoral, or in violation of international law, and that must necessarily result in all contracts being nullified as preposterous in comparison, then it's chaos. What you're describing is an eventual consequence of metastasizing corruption. Wealth does not trickle down, but corruption does.
- Derek_MK 8y ago
  You can use this argument for literally anything, it means nothing. > Apparently we live in a country where the government can murder thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, deny that it ever happened, and profit off of the destruction. > But god help you if you brutally beat someone to death
  - empath75 8y ago
    To be honest one of the reasons that government malfeasance of the kind that got us into Iraq is so dangerous is that it promotes exactly this kind of cynicism. We’ll be hearing exactly this kind of argument for decades because of the shit trump is getting away with now, and he’s arguing he should get away with it because of the shit Clinton and Bush got away with. It’s off topic, but a culture of law breaking at the top promotes law breaking at all levels of society.

justin66 8y ago

In a contempt hearing centered around violation of the terms of the settlement with the SEC, that's probably not a great argument. It's an error Musk would not have made if he'd simply adhered to the agreement and had a lawyer review what he tweeted.

afastow 8y ago

The SEC saw that argument coming and shot it down completely in their filing: > According to Tesla’s Policy, any edits to a pre-approved Written Communication or even releasing a verbatim pre-approved Written Communication more than two days after it has been pre-approved requires that the pre-approval be reconfirmed. Even if the exact substance of the 7:15 tweet had been pre-approved 20 days before, Musk cannot credibly claim that he thought he was not required to obtain pre-approval again under the plain terms of the Policy. In fact, the written communication in the 7:15 tweet was not pre-approved 20 days earlier or at any time. Musk’s claim that he thought he was simply restating information from the January 30 communications is not credible. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5750664-Show-Cause.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5750664-Show-Cause.h... page 12

Dylan16807 8y ago
This tweet was not an edit to a pre-approved communication. That rule is irrelevant. The argument is not "this tweet got approved before, so I can edit it however I want". The argument is "the number is already public information, so I can make a new post mentioning it".
- sangnoir 8y ago
  > This tweet was not an edit to a pre-approved communication. That is the problem, in a nutshell: it should have been pre-approved - according to the FCC's interpretation of the settlement agreement.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    Maybe. But don't confuse different arguments about why. If the tweet needed pre-approval, it's for a reason entirely different from this quote.
    - rory096 8y ago
      Whether or not it's a valid argument, that does seem to be the SEC's argument here.