>Did Musk not actually believe in his heart

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?

I'm saying the idea of just making a misstatement doesn’t necessarily rise to the level of fraud. You have to do something with intentionality.

Oops, I mean I didn't say that. The head of the San Francisco SEC office did.

Yes, but proving intent is the easy part of this, what with Musk's propensity to trash-talk short-sellers.

Disliking short sellers is not the same as intent to defraud the public. Every CEO dislikes short sellers. Intent to commit fraud is absolutely the hardest part of this to prove.

Cool, now we can retread the part where I expressed skepticism that personal optimism is carte blanche to represent any "secured" investment terms to the public.

It might be gross incompetence rather than fraud you’re saying.

not to mention that what his tweet said was "Secured funding." (many news organizations misquote it as "Funding secured.")

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.

Am I missing something? The tweet[0] says no such thing.

[0] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1026872652290379776?ref_...

> not to mention that what his tweet said was "Secured funding." (many news organizations misquote it as "Funding secured.")

This is not true.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1026872652290379776