> but it seems basically obvious to all observers.
It doesn't seem obvious to me. It seems like one of a few interpretations, not limited to:
- Elon was overly stressed (as has been documented recently) and didn't think before posting such an impactful statement
- He considers twitter to be an official outlet for Tesla and just continued with his tendency to publicise his decisions and thought process constantly.
- His idea of "secured" is simply different from the SEC definition and if the funding had been SEC-secured, the tweet would be a compliant form of public disclosure.
[edit]
To be clear, I'm not arguing that the tweet shouldn't be investigated. I'm saying that "he intentionally lied to screw over short sellers" is presumptive and that may not have been his intent.
It doesn't seem obvious to me. It seems like one of a few interpretations, not limited to:
- Elon was overly stressed (as has been documented recently) and didn't think before posting such an impactful statement
- He considers twitter to be an official outlet for Tesla and just continued with his tendency to publicise his decisions and thought process constantly.
- His idea of "secured" is simply different from the SEC definition and if the funding had been SEC-secured, the tweet would be a compliant form of public disclosure.
[edit]
To be clear, I'm not arguing that the tweet shouldn't be investigated. I'm saying that "he intentionally lied to screw over short sellers" is presumptive and that may not have been his intent.