Based on available evidence, it seems that there are two basic outlines that can be drawn around what transpired: (1) What the Goldmanite said was innocuous (a

Based on available evidence, it seems that there are two basic outlines that can be drawn around what transpired: (1) What the Goldmanite said was innocuous (and the regulator simply didn't know what to make of it -- i.e. yes, he must have not known about exemptions for accredited investors); or (2) What the Goldmanite said was potentially quite troubling (and the regulator knew it), for reasons we don't know yet (due to the missing context). Which it was, or even likely was, of course I cannot say. But the basic point is that the fact that the regulator tried to hush his colleague up in this situation is by itself quite troubling. Especially if it's part of a larger pattern. (2)