> So, anyone can get away with a crime if they're overstressed?

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.

He then went and taunted short sellers on Twitter when the stock went up in response to his tweet.

Also I don't believe his intent matter for criminal liability in market manipulation.

> He then went and taunted short sellers on Twitter when the stock went up in response to his tweet.

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.

He sent shorts to David Einhorn

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/elon-musk-ma...

It was a company, Chubbies, that sent short shorts to David Einhorn not Elon. https://insideevs.com/chubbies-sends-short-shorts-tesla-shor...

Heh. That's actually kind of a chuckleworthy story. Thanks for that.

Intent may not necessarily matter.

for the investigation, no it probably doesn't. But that's not what I'm arguing, and I don't see why people think it is.

I know whenever I'm stressed I go post falsehoods on my public Twitter account to blow off some steam.

> Words mean things. That's how we communicate.

Yes, but words are often nuanced and ambiguous. It's why we have an entire legal system to interpret exactly what "words" mean.

Just how "nuanced" can the word "secured" mean here?