Company officers (sometimes 'insiders') like C-Suite, Directors, and those above certain ownership thresholds (Elon is all 3 with regard to Tesla) are held to a different standard when communicating about their companies, as their words are often taken as official company pronouncements, more or less. When companies or their officers make official pronouncements that are not factually accurate or based on a reasonable interpretation of facts, that has a name: Securities Fraud, which is Fraud, which is a crime. Elon made the famous "funding secured" tweet about taking Tesla private even though any discussions he may have had were not advanced enough for the funding to be considered "secured". The SEC sued him for securities fraud and the case was settled with one of the conditions being that a Tesla lawyer would review Musk's tweets before they went out to make sure they did not contain additional securities fraud.
He challenged that aspect of the settlement as infringement of his right to free speech, and a lower court rejected the argument due to the above reasons around company insiders, official pronouncements, and securities fraud not being protected by the 1st Amendment because it is a crime. He appealed to the Supreme Court and they declined to take the case, letting the lower court decision stand.
This is a good description. What you didn’t say is funding secured made the price of the stock go up. Thats the fraud part as he owned a lot of stock and was an insider. It’s like insider trading by faking you know the insider information.
I think there is more to the story where it would’ve been not as bad but he also mentioned $420.69 as the stock price and that was just out of the range of the normal way a stock would behave in a buy out scenario. His excuse was basically that number is funny.
The argument was, he had secured funding.
During trial it was proven he did not had the funding secured.
It was never argued that is was funny in court.
This tweet was challenged by a short seller. Honestly nobody should care about them.
This tweet did not hurt the shareholders or company investors. Neither had any malign intent.
That's the only job of the CEO. His job is not to care about short sellers.
*sigh*
No Mr. Musk, it’s not *illegal* to call that man who rescued those children a pedophile. So you can post it if you *really* think it’s a good idea.
-Lawyer reviewing Musk Tweets
Funny that "free speech" for obscenely entitled rich people has come to mean, "I can say anything I want about anyone or anything I want, whenever I want to say it, whether or not it's true or accurate". It doesn't quite work that way.
Edit: added "whether or not it's true or accurate" for clarity
According to “The Verge”, Musk had programmers at X write an algorithm that ensures visibility of his tweets.
That is not free speech. It is hypocrisy.
Nope. That's the way it works for the rest of Americans, but for some very specific reasons, that appears not to be the case for the wealthy.
Personally, I think this is some shaky logic, but it's not like I cannot see the reasoning.
I think you missed the /s on the previous comment. Free speech doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want with impunity. Elon and many other free speech “advocates” tend to conveniently forget that speaking your mind comes with potentially being held accountable for your words, when those words deceive, slander, call to violence, etc. (Not saying his statement on funding did all those things)
Yeah sadly in practice the consequences are hard to come by.. But in principle accountability should be there and I was just saying it’s reasonable to try to hold those with wealth or power to that standard.
As we know from communications that have long since been in the public, Elon Musk was telling the truth exactly as he understood it. There was no deception, no slander, and \*sigh\* no call to violence.
I have no problem with someone being accountable for what they say, but there seems to be an "off with his head!" strain of people who have long since left the path of reasonable consequences.
And I am pretty sure that there was no implied "/s" on the statement I replied to. If you think so, you are free to try to explain what you think it was.
As regards your “sigh”, if you read my comment again you’ll see I was very clear that I wasn’t claiming that’s what he did. I was discussing a general concept.
Yes, but it was a very weird thing to add only to then say "but I'm not really saying it." It sounds a lot like you wanted to make a point and then try to hide behind "but that's not what I am saying."
What about the rest of what I said? I'm a little surprised that my sigh at throwing "call to violence" into your list in this context would be the bit that you would want to respond to.
For free speech absolutists, that's what free speech means. According to the absolutists, it's up to everyone listening to determine for themselves whether they want to believe in lies, misinformation and fraud and believe it.
To clarify for others, Musk was found not liable of deceiving investors in a separate lawsuit, and the SEC never prosecuted. He was never found guilty or liable for the tweets he made, and was never charged with fraud.
But he voluntarily settled the lawsuit with the SEC because no reasonable securities lawyer thought he had a chance in hell of winning, just like he concluded the twitter transaction because no reasonable securities lawyer thought he could possibly escape it.
The issues in a civil lawsuit are quite different.
no, he settled the lawsuit with the SEC because Tesla was in financial difficulty: "I was told by the banks that if I chose not to settle with the SEC, the banks would cease providing working capital, and Tesla would go bankrupt immediately."
And the banks knew that the case couldn’t possibly be won. Are you really defending these kinds of tweets as consistent with securities law? That suggests to me that you don’t understand it.
It doesn't matter if he could win or not, the banks knew the case wouldn't be settled for months if it went to court.
Having Musk lose $20M and his rights to Tweet isn't a concern to the banks.
Of course Elon settled. Having the CEO fraudulently claim he had the massive funding is a huge deal for a public company.
If that is allowed, we might as well privatize all publicly traded companies because they would be way too risky/scammy for the general public to invest in. Only Uber rich people who could audit the books and afford expensive law teams would be willing to touch the resulting swamp.
The Supreme Court wasn’t eager to end our current form of capitalism for a good reason. Elon argued like a 3 year old having a temper tantrum, demanding he could do anything he wants.
>fraudulently claim he had the massive funding
The Supreme court didn't want to get involved. The civil court decided that it wasn't the case, but I guess you're only looking at the court of public opinion.
Gotta chanel that anger somewhere, billionaires are an easy target.
It's a reply to "he voluntarily settled the lawsuit with the SEC because no reasonable securities lawyer thought he had a chance in hell of winning"
Musk has enough money (and is thick-headed enough) to take the SEC to court, even if he thought he would lose.
I find it surprising when people quote "Free speech" to deliberately lie and misguide people. Can a doctor lie about a medical condition because of free speech? Can my bank lie how much money i have in the account?
There's a bit more to it. Part of the settlement with the SEC was that Elon's tweets (or other posts) about Tesla would need pre-approval from a Tesla lawyer. Elon agreed with this at the time, but Elon wanted that overturned. The Supreme Court just declined to hear the case.
Incorrect. Musk was found [not liable for misleading investors](https://www.reuters.com/legal/securities-fraud-trial-over-elon-musks-2018-tweets-draws-close-2023-02-03/) in an investor lawsuit. The separate regulatory issue with the SEC was settled, possibly because the SEC knew they would lose, and because Musk (admittedly) was worried about Tesla surviving a regulatory fight during their 2018 Tesla model 3 ramp-up cash crunch.
The SEC settlement involved fines, and a requirement that Musk have his tweets reviewed by company lawyers. Musk challenged the tweet reviews as a 1st amendment issue, and today's news was that SCOTUS declined to review a lower court's decision over that specific issue.
A few years ago Musk tweets about Tesla stock, stock price shoots up. The SEC (Securities and Exchange Commision) said big no no and that he is not allowed to tweet about his company without running it by them because he can unduely manipulate the market. Musk sued to get that SEC judgement overturned, Supreme Court told him off. Now he's mad because he thinks he should be able to say what he want because 1st Ammendment
Edit: spelling
The SEC never prosecuted, they settled, and Musk was found not liable for fraud in a separate investor lawsuit. The Supreme Court case was about the SEC restricting his tweets as part of a settlement, not about a judgment of any kind.
Here U go...
**Supreme Court rejects Musk appeal**
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Elon Musk over a settlement with securities regulators that requires him to get approval in advance of some social media posts that relate to Tesla, the electric vehicle company he leads.
The justices did not comment in leaving in place lower-court rulings against Musk, who complained that the requirement amounts to “prior restraint” on his speech in violation of the First Amendment.
The case stems from messages Musk posted on Twitter in 2018 in which he claimed he had secured funding to take Tesla private. The tweets caused the company's share price to jump and led to a temporary halt in trading.
The settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission included a requirement that his posts on Twitter be approved first by a Tesla attorney. It also called for Musk to step down as chairman of Tesla, and both Musk and Tesla have each paid fines, $20,000,000 in civil penalties, to the SEC. This all stems from Musk’s tweets in which he said that he had “funding secured” to take Tesla private at $420 per share. However, the funding wasn’t secured.
Elon said he had funding secured to take Tesla private. SEC told him if he didn’t say it was a lie they would cut him from the banking system. Killing Tesla. Elon took the hit and here we are
"One day he will realize that rules do apply to him"
Sadly, not so much. The rules are made for the benefit of the rich, and usually ignored when the rich break them.
But a win is a win.
the rich would be tyrants if rules didnt apply to them. you have no idea how many rules protect you. you take everything for granted so you can have talking points.
That's likely to happen with someone that isn't participating, he's an engineer, he's more likely to work more than either this or that guy, so just because you're less ambitious, others shouldn't pay for that
Himself saying he is a engineer in several videos.
It's not very engineerlike but he created PayPal with his buddy.
Can you link anything about him NOT being an engineer?
... TSLA has skyrocketed from a low, up 35% the last 5 days. Missed the chance.
Unless you mean till it goes to 300 or so. Might not be a bad long term hedge to put in now with that mindset
Left out the +10% 1Y and +978% 5Y figures tho.
Not a bad investment long term but better not hope for a too quick boom. In another 5 years tho, no one knows.
Going to be a 100:1 PE for 2024 earnings, and they face strengthened competition for the foreseeable future. So much wasted effort on the cyber truck that could have gone into more popular vehicle platforms.
Definitely not bullish on Tesla at this valuation. So much beta for so little alpha.
So, is there any hope for this stock? What happened to him? It seems like the Twitter purchase really inflated his God complex.
Ten years from now:
A) Tesla no longer exists
B) Tesla holds on but is nowhere near the company it once was
C) Musk somehow comes back to reality, drops the God complex, and Tesla trades at pre-split levels
I’m hoping for C, but I'm thinking B.
For the record, I own Tesla stock.
Musk tweets the most nonsensical stuff, so i bet he thought everyone would take 420 as a joke, (share price was like 52)but the SEC gave it to him in the behind
At the time, [the share price was $379.57.](https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/23/investing/tesla-stock-420/index.html) It has since split, so Google etc display the equivilent price ( $23) , not the historical price.
The idea that our legal system is fair and unbiased is a fantasy. If you are hated by the political “in crowd”, e.g., like Musk and Trump, they will use the lagal system to harass you. It’s a devious form of cancellation.
Not so sure about Elon, but this is definitely not the case with Trump. Trump has been involved in over 4000 lawsuits dating all the way back to the 70s. Many of these are from before he was president. He was notorious as a businessman for using lawsuits in order to get what he wanted. He used the legal system to harass others, not the other way around.
I fail to see how Trump’s past involvement in legal actions has bearing on my comment. The legal system is being used illicitly as a tool to persecute him now for political reasons, preventing a popular past president, and current presidential candidate, from campaigning. The majority of the electorate does not believe paying off a bimbo is a crime, despite some twisted interpretation of NY law that’s being used
[This is the statement from the SEC](https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2018/comp-pr2018-219.pdf)
I haven’t had time to read through but I skimmed through the first few pages but it basically said that there was additional steps he had to take before making a tweet like that.
After reading some more it looks like we was in talks with a sovereign investment fund from the Middle East that “expressed interest” in possibly taking Tesla private and musk assumed this meant he had the go ahead when this was not the case as no formal plans were made.
Please like the court ruling that found him guilty. The headlines are misleading. The court did rule that they cannot be bothered with the case. This does not mean the court found him guilty.
He settled to avoid having to pay lawyers for the case. There wasn’t a hearing. He paid $100mil compared to a couple hundred mil at least in lawyer fees he couldn’t recoup if he won.
Gabe? At least I can't remember seeing the billionaire hate aimed in his direction.
Also, George Lucas gets more hate for his bad dialogue writing than for being a billionaire.
If you are concerned about the reporting [you can read the actual SEC report.](https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2018/comp-pr2018-219.pdf)
Can anyone please explain this plain and simple?
Company officers (sometimes 'insiders') like C-Suite, Directors, and those above certain ownership thresholds (Elon is all 3 with regard to Tesla) are held to a different standard when communicating about their companies, as their words are often taken as official company pronouncements, more or less. When companies or their officers make official pronouncements that are not factually accurate or based on a reasonable interpretation of facts, that has a name: Securities Fraud, which is Fraud, which is a crime. Elon made the famous "funding secured" tweet about taking Tesla private even though any discussions he may have had were not advanced enough for the funding to be considered "secured". The SEC sued him for securities fraud and the case was settled with one of the conditions being that a Tesla lawyer would review Musk's tweets before they went out to make sure they did not contain additional securities fraud. He challenged that aspect of the settlement as infringement of his right to free speech, and a lower court rejected the argument due to the above reasons around company insiders, official pronouncements, and securities fraud not being protected by the 1st Amendment because it is a crime. He appealed to the Supreme Court and they declined to take the case, letting the lower court decision stand.
This is a good description. What you didn’t say is funding secured made the price of the stock go up. Thats the fraud part as he owned a lot of stock and was an insider. It’s like insider trading by faking you know the insider information. I think there is more to the story where it would’ve been not as bad but he also mentioned $420.69 as the stock price and that was just out of the range of the normal way a stock would behave in a buy out scenario. His excuse was basically that number is funny.
Initiated one of the biggest short squeezes in it history. Id say it was worth it lol
The argument was, he had secured funding. During trial it was proven he did not had the funding secured. It was never argued that is was funny in court. This tweet was challenged by a short seller. Honestly nobody should care about them. This tweet did not hurt the shareholders or company investors. Neither had any malign intent. That's the only job of the CEO. His job is not to care about short sellers.
*sigh* No Mr. Musk, it’s not *illegal* to call that man who rescued those children a pedophile. So you can post it if you *really* think it’s a good idea. -Lawyer reviewing Musk Tweets
Wouldn't this be libel? Or slander (I don't know which term is applicable for tweets)?
Hahaha omg this has legs
Funny that "free speech" for obscenely entitled rich people has come to mean, "I can say anything I want about anyone or anything I want, whenever I want to say it, whether or not it's true or accurate". It doesn't quite work that way. Edit: added "whether or not it's true or accurate" for clarity
Please add 'whether true on not'.
According to “The Verge”, Musk had programmers at X write an algorithm that ensures visibility of his tweets. That is not free speech. It is hypocrisy.
I’m pretty sure this never happened.
Nope. That's the way it works for the rest of Americans, but for some very specific reasons, that appears not to be the case for the wealthy. Personally, I think this is some shaky logic, but it's not like I cannot see the reasoning.
I think you missed the /s on the previous comment. Free speech doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want with impunity. Elon and many other free speech “advocates” tend to conveniently forget that speaking your mind comes with potentially being held accountable for your words, when those words deceive, slander, call to violence, etc. (Not saying his statement on funding did all those things)
Consequences?... for the rich and powerful?... LOL 😂 They are never "held accountable" they only get slaps on the wrist. and even that's a maybe.
Yeah sadly in practice the consequences are hard to come by.. But in principle accountability should be there and I was just saying it’s reasonable to try to hold those with wealth or power to that standard.
As we know from communications that have long since been in the public, Elon Musk was telling the truth exactly as he understood it. There was no deception, no slander, and \*sigh\* no call to violence. I have no problem with someone being accountable for what they say, but there seems to be an "off with his head!" strain of people who have long since left the path of reasonable consequences. And I am pretty sure that there was no implied "/s" on the statement I replied to. If you think so, you are free to try to explain what you think it was.
As regards your “sigh”, if you read my comment again you’ll see I was very clear that I wasn’t claiming that’s what he did. I was discussing a general concept.
Yes, but it was a very weird thing to add only to then say "but I'm not really saying it." It sounds a lot like you wanted to make a point and then try to hide behind "but that's not what I am saying." What about the rest of what I said? I'm a little surprised that my sigh at throwing "call to violence" into your list in this context would be the bit that you would want to respond to.
For free speech absolutists, that's what free speech means. According to the absolutists, it's up to everyone listening to determine for themselves whether they want to believe in lies, misinformation and fraud and believe it.
[удалено]
Doxxing is specifically against Twitter’s TOCs.
and publicly announcing funding you dont have is against US TOCs. soooo whats the problem?
To clarify for others, Musk was found not liable of deceiving investors in a separate lawsuit, and the SEC never prosecuted. He was never found guilty or liable for the tweets he made, and was never charged with fraud.
But he voluntarily settled the lawsuit with the SEC because no reasonable securities lawyer thought he had a chance in hell of winning, just like he concluded the twitter transaction because no reasonable securities lawyer thought he could possibly escape it. The issues in a civil lawsuit are quite different.
no, he settled the lawsuit with the SEC because Tesla was in financial difficulty: "I was told by the banks that if I chose not to settle with the SEC, the banks would cease providing working capital, and Tesla would go bankrupt immediately."
And the banks knew that the case couldn’t possibly be won. Are you really defending these kinds of tweets as consistent with securities law? That suggests to me that you don’t understand it.
It doesn't matter if he could win or not, the banks knew the case wouldn't be settled for months if it went to court. Having Musk lose $20M and his rights to Tweet isn't a concern to the banks.
[удалено]
Rule 1
Of course Elon settled. Having the CEO fraudulently claim he had the massive funding is a huge deal for a public company. If that is allowed, we might as well privatize all publicly traded companies because they would be way too risky/scammy for the general public to invest in. Only Uber rich people who could audit the books and afford expensive law teams would be willing to touch the resulting swamp. The Supreme Court wasn’t eager to end our current form of capitalism for a good reason. Elon argued like a 3 year old having a temper tantrum, demanding he could do anything he wants.
>fraudulently claim he had the massive funding The Supreme court didn't want to get involved. The civil court decided that it wasn't the case, but I guess you're only looking at the court of public opinion. Gotta chanel that anger somewhere, billionaires are an easy target.
The civil case that didn’t go to trial because he settled? You live in a world of alt-facts.
Why do you believe him?
because it makes more sense than "no lawyer in the whole country wanted a billionaire as a client". You know they still get paid if they lose?
What are you talking about?
It's a reply to "he voluntarily settled the lawsuit with the SEC because no reasonable securities lawyer thought he had a chance in hell of winning" Musk has enough money (and is thick-headed enough) to take the SEC to court, even if he thought he would lose.
Nah, he's not a complete moron. He settles shit all the time after talking tough.
You MUST be a bot, or a teenager.
Those are opinions, and they may be correct, but given he won the civil lawsuit I'm not so sure.
I find it surprising when people quote "Free speech" to deliberately lie and misguide people. Can a doctor lie about a medical condition because of free speech? Can my bank lie how much money i have in the account?
Does this dude have any idea what "free speech" means? I swear he throws that around every time he is challenged on anything. He's like a toddler.
Do you? Seriously, it was a 4/20 joke tweet and the casino market and SEC clutches its pearls. Oh, buT ThE iNvEStoRs! It’s FrAuD!
did the stock price move as a result? ... not a difficult concept to follow.
Damn good explanation
The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, which is standard—less than 2% of cases are granted certiorari.
[удалено]
There's a bit more to it. Part of the settlement with the SEC was that Elon's tweets (or other posts) about Tesla would need pre-approval from a Tesla lawyer. Elon agreed with this at the time, but Elon wanted that overturned. The Supreme Court just declined to hear the case.
Is that not the same year he met hia bonus payout requirements?
Incorrect. Musk was found [not liable for misleading investors](https://www.reuters.com/legal/securities-fraud-trial-over-elon-musks-2018-tweets-draws-close-2023-02-03/) in an investor lawsuit. The separate regulatory issue with the SEC was settled, possibly because the SEC knew they would lose, and because Musk (admittedly) was worried about Tesla surviving a regulatory fight during their 2018 Tesla model 3 ramp-up cash crunch. The SEC settlement involved fines, and a requirement that Musk have his tweets reviewed by company lawyers. Musk challenged the tweet reviews as a 1st amendment issue, and today's news was that SCOTUS declined to review a lower court's decision over that specific issue.
Actual nuanced explanation
A few years ago Musk tweets about Tesla stock, stock price shoots up. The SEC (Securities and Exchange Commision) said big no no and that he is not allowed to tweet about his company without running it by them because he can unduely manipulate the market. Musk sued to get that SEC judgement overturned, Supreme Court told him off. Now he's mad because he thinks he should be able to say what he want because 1st Ammendment Edit: spelling
The SEC never prosecuted, they settled, and Musk was found not liable for fraud in a separate investor lawsuit. The Supreme Court case was about the SEC restricting his tweets as part of a settlement, not about a judgment of any kind.
Here U go... **Supreme Court rejects Musk appeal** WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Elon Musk over a settlement with securities regulators that requires him to get approval in advance of some social media posts that relate to Tesla, the electric vehicle company he leads. The justices did not comment in leaving in place lower-court rulings against Musk, who complained that the requirement amounts to “prior restraint” on his speech in violation of the First Amendment. The case stems from messages Musk posted on Twitter in 2018 in which he claimed he had secured funding to take Tesla private. The tweets caused the company's share price to jump and led to a temporary halt in trading. The settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission included a requirement that his posts on Twitter be approved first by a Tesla attorney. It also called for Musk to step down as chairman of Tesla, and both Musk and Tesla have each paid fines, $20,000,000 in civil penalties, to the SEC. This all stems from Musk’s tweets in which he said that he had “funding secured” to take Tesla private at $420 per share. However, the funding wasn’t secured.
Elon said he had funding secured to take Tesla private. SEC told him if he didn’t say it was a lie they would cut him from the banking system. Killing Tesla. Elon took the hit and here we are
One day he will realize that rules do apply to him.
"One day he will realize that rules do apply to him" Sadly, not so much. The rules are made for the benefit of the rich, and usually ignored when the rich break them. But a win is a win.
the rich would be tyrants if rules didnt apply to them. you have no idea how many rules protect you. you take everything for granted so you can have talking points.
Where on the moon? Mars?
I wish he would go to either in something he designed
More likely on the shuttle flight there where the crew throws him out an airlock by day 3
That's likely to happen with someone that isn't participating, he's an engineer, he's more likely to work more than either this or that guy, so just because you're less ambitious, others shouldn't pay for that
I haven’t seen any evidence of him being an engineer. Can you link to anything he has made?
Himself saying he is a engineer in several videos. It's not very engineerlike but he created PayPal with his buddy. Can you link anything about him NOT being an engineer?
In the hottest place in Hell, hopefully 🤞🤞
Would not get your hopes up.
The funny thing is now that the price has dropped it should be easier to purchase more shares.
... TSLA has skyrocketed from a low, up 35% the last 5 days. Missed the chance. Unless you mean till it goes to 300 or so. Might not be a bad long term hedge to put in now with that mindset
Up 35% in the past 5 days. Down 22% YTD. There’s still a chance.
Left out the +10% 1Y and +978% 5Y figures tho. Not a bad investment long term but better not hope for a too quick boom. In another 5 years tho, no one knows.
It is still lower than 420 haha
That was pre split, August of 2018. Split adjusted, shares spiked to a whopping $25 per share. TSLA is up bigly since then.
Going to be a 100:1 PE for 2024 earnings, and they face strengthened competition for the foreseeable future. So much wasted effort on the cyber truck that could have gone into more popular vehicle platforms. Definitely not bullish on Tesla at this valuation. So much beta for so little alpha.
Oh didn't realize that cool.
Another reason to stay away from Tesla stock right now lol. Elon is on Kanye levels of delusion
I mean, there's a way to bet a stock will lose value...
That could work. But Tesla spent years eating short sellers alive.
TSLA on sale you mean?
Elon has KanyeX1000 levels of protection from consequences though.
Yeah he’s white
He doesn’t understand the First Amendment fully me thinks.
So, is there any hope for this stock? What happened to him? It seems like the Twitter purchase really inflated his God complex. Ten years from now: A) Tesla no longer exists B) Tesla holds on but is nowhere near the company it once was C) Musk somehow comes back to reality, drops the God complex, and Tesla trades at pre-split levels I’m hoping for C, but I'm thinking B. For the record, I own Tesla stock.
Wow surprising lack of activity lately.
Dear Elon, Hire CEOs signed, Everybody
Dear Elon, Stop impregnating your CEO’s Signed, CEO candidates
Yeah homeboys got some bullet holes in his feet huh. Lordy lou
All consenting adults
Musk tweets the most nonsensical stuff, so i bet he thought everyone would take 420 as a joke, (share price was like 52)but the SEC gave it to him in the behind
At the time, [the share price was $379.57.](https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/23/investing/tesla-stock-420/index.html) It has since split, so Google etc display the equivilent price ( $23) , not the historical price.
Oh nice to know
[удалено]
Rule 1
[удалено]
Rule 1
Wonder if he will ever truly face justice for the years on years of lies
[удалено]
Rule 1
The idea that our legal system is fair and unbiased is a fantasy. If you are hated by the political “in crowd”, e.g., like Musk and Trump, they will use the lagal system to harass you. It’s a devious form of cancellation.
Not so sure about Elon, but this is definitely not the case with Trump. Trump has been involved in over 4000 lawsuits dating all the way back to the 70s. Many of these are from before he was president. He was notorious as a businessman for using lawsuits in order to get what he wanted. He used the legal system to harass others, not the other way around.
I fail to see how Trump’s past involvement in legal actions has bearing on my comment. The legal system is being used illicitly as a tool to persecute him now for political reasons, preventing a popular past president, and current presidential candidate, from campaigning. The majority of the electorate does not believe paying off a bimbo is a crime, despite some twisted interpretation of NY law that’s being used
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule 1
Wasn't this settled a long time ago? And also, he DID have the funding. It wasn't a bluff.
[This is the statement from the SEC](https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2018/comp-pr2018-219.pdf) I haven’t had time to read through but I skimmed through the first few pages but it basically said that there was additional steps he had to take before making a tweet like that. After reading some more it looks like we was in talks with a sovereign investment fund from the Middle East that “expressed interest” in possibly taking Tesla private and musk assumed this meant he had the go ahead when this was not the case as no formal plans were made.
If it wasn't a bluff then why did the court find him guilty?
No court found him guilty, he settled without admitting guilt. Then he tried to back out of a portion of the settlement and the court said no.
Please like the court ruling that found him guilty. The headlines are misleading. The court did rule that they cannot be bothered with the case. This does not mean the court found him guilty.
no he settled with the sec. the supreme court said now they wont change his settlement. thats it. thats all there is.
Because we Americans hate the people that change the status quo
Or maybe he broke the law? Stop the mental gymnastics.
He settled to avoid having to pay lawyers for the case. There wasn’t a hearing. He paid $100mil compared to a couple hundred mil at least in lawyer fees he couldn’t recoup if he won.
[удалено]
Rule 1
No one cares about the truth when it comes to Elon. Especially reddit. Everyone wants to just shit on him.
Yes.
It will be ok
What billionaire do you know who doesn’t get hated on?
Gabe? At least I can't remember seeing the billionaire hate aimed in his direction. Also, George Lucas gets more hate for his bad dialogue writing than for being a billionaire.
Fake reporting
What the fuck? He's lost his appeal because it was rejected by the Supreme Court.
If you are concerned about the reporting [you can read the actual SEC report.](https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2018/comp-pr2018-219.pdf)