No this is not textbook at all. See previous citation from the SEC re: intentionality as a key element in criminal fraud.
"Clearly and knowingly false" is just a serious-sounding way to say a misstatement. Did Musk not actually believe in his heart that the deal was basically done? It wasn't, of course, but it takes more than being incorrect to constitute fraud. It takes intent to do something you know is wrong. Wishful thinking may be fraud but it is not necessarily textbook fraud.
So you're saying that, the way securities law works, personal optimism is all it takes to justify any representation of any upcoming financing terms? There's no requirement beyond what's in his heart?
Oops, I mean I didn't say that. The head of the San Francisco SEC office did.
In English, the sentence "Secured funding" is ambiguous in meaning: as a shorthand sentence, it could mean "we would only use secured funding for a transaction like this".
"Secured debt" is a thing, and therefore secured funding is a thing. Unless he clarified it someplace else in a way that was not in his favor, there is plenty of wiggle room in that sentence.
[0] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1026872652290379776?ref_...
Optimism might justify a statement like "final stages of signing funding" or "almost closed the deal" or even "funding as good as secured" -- there might be ambiguity there. Not for "funding secured".
This is as close to textbook as you can get.