> His idea of "secured" is simply different from the SEC definition ...
He is the CEO. He's not allowed to have a different definition. Words mean things. That's how we communicate.
Are you putting words in my mouth on purpose? I'm not arguing that he shouldn't be investigated. I'm arguing that "trying to screw over short sellers" is not the only and "obvious" reason why he could have made the tweet.
Also I don't believe his intent matter for criminal liability in market manipulation.
Source? I legitimately haven't seen this.
> Also I don't believe his intent matter for criminal liability in market manipulation.
I'm not saying it does. Where did I say it does? I don't understand why I keep getting this response.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/elon-musk-ma...
Yes, but words are often nuanced and ambiguous. It's why we have an entire legal system to interpret exactly what "words" mean.