JAY CLAYTON "THAT TYPE OF CURRENCY / CURRENCY / CURRENCY IS NOT A SECURITY"

[HAL1000]

IF IT'S NOT A SECURITY - THEN IT IS NOT UNDER SEC JURISDICTION.

"WE DETERMINED"

AND MORE FROM THE EX HEAD OF THE SEC

IT IS NOW VERY CLEAR WHAT GUIDANCE WAS GIVEN TO MARKET PARTICIPANTS.

FROM THE EX HEAD OF THE SEC - THIS IS INSANITY.

HEY GG - DROP THIS LAWSUIT RIGHT NOW, STOP CRYING TO CONGRESS AND DO THE RIGHT THING.

The mission of the SEC is to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation.

 

Edited December 12, 2021 by HAL1000

[princesultan]

So ridiculous 

[Guest]

The SEC under J Clayton's leadership jumped into this lawsuit headfirst and without understanding every angle.

It seems like they attacked the company Ripple to set up a foundation to go after other cryptos and stifle XRP in the name of gaining time for legacy banking systems and to allow government control of this asset, probably to limit it until they can wrap their heads around it.

They picked on the wrong company. They are being exposed for not being prepared, for not understanding what they were trying to control, for not caring about retail investors they knew they would harm and for not setting up regulatory clarity that truly favored American progress. 

They can't possibly win now. If they do, it would have been one of the most corrupt litigations in my lifetime, and it would signal cracks in our ranks. US hegemony would be overtaken by China. 

Life has taught me that the people in charge are not always the brightest. Clear as day in this example. The SEC as an authority has failed. 

[Danny]

The day judge Netburn judges XRP is not a security, a lot of money will be flowing from other assets and tokens (which do not have regulatory clarity) into XRP. From BTC and ETH as well, unless the SEC simultaneously declares Bitcoin and Ethereum to be non-securities. Perhaps that's one of the reasons the SEC stated it hasn't said anything officially about BTC en ETH. 

[JASCoder]

2 hours ago, Cambridge said:

They picked on the wrong company.

Funny thing is they didn't need to mess with XRP speculators like they did - they could have provided for a "safe harbor" condition so the exchanges wouldn't delist. Also, they could have just pursued this like a normal case, and ONLY prosecute the corp, and not its directors as well.

What Clayton did was an egregious abuse of power, rather than a pure sabotage play. 

#LockHimUp !!  

[RandyMarsh]

Yes, pour it on, keep it coming. I want justice so bad I can taste it between my two cheeks. Can't look at JC's face anymore... he certainly deserves a head-butt. My anger over this did a 10x recently. 

[HAL1000]

7 hours ago, Danny said:

Perhaps that's one of the reasons the SEC stated it hasn't said anything officially about BTC en ETH. 

How much more official do you want?

Mary Jo White who served as the 31st chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission from 2013 to 2017 said, "THE SEC ARE DEAD WRONG" when it comes to this lawsuit.

J Clayton appearing as SEC chairman on national TV above, states publicly "WE DETERMINED BTC IS NOT A SECURITY", now the SEC have changed their minds again, suggesting under GG that BTC maybe a security. If SEC leadership can't make up its mind about what is or isn't a security in the crypto space, then filing a lawsuit against Brad / Chris and Ripple on the basis that they should have known, is beyond belief.

[JASCoder]

More great press for the corrupt SEC: 

 

[HAL1000]

 

[HAL1000]

And now Mooonyyy Lambo and a run down of John Deatons tweet's.

 

[Danny]

8 hours ago, HAL1000 said:

How much more official do you want?

Mary Jo White who served as the 31st chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission from 2013 to 2017 said, "THE SEC ARE DEAD WRONG" when it comes to this lawsuit.

J Clayton appearing as SEC chairman on national TV above, states publicly "WE DETERMINED BTC IS NOT A SECURITY", now the SEC have changed their minds again, suggesting under GG that BTC maybe a security. If SEC leadership can't make up its mind about what is or isn't a security in the crypto space, then filing a lawsuit against Brad / Chris and Ripple on the basis that they should have known, is beyond belief.

True, but to what extent is saying something in an interview on TV lawful and legally valid?

[HAL1000]

4 hours ago, Danny said:

True, but to what extent is saying something in an interview on TV lawful and legally valid?

If the head of the SEC appears on TV as SEC CHAIRMAN and not J Clayton random guy has this to say on BTC, then that is expressing to the market the SEC's official position. In a court of law, that's like having a murderer on video committing the crime, whilst holding the bloody knife up at the camera, saying I did it, so a bunch of people later on saying, well it doesn't mean anything in a legal sense, is nonsensical at best and an absolute sign of market manipulation by a criminal element within the SEC.

Either way, good luck getting a judge to see it the way you want it to be perceived, "that video means absolutely nothing judge, honest", rather than the way it actually is. JC and Hinman are both on camera appearing as SEC officials, with SEC logos surrounding them, they KNOWINGLY did this deliberately and nobody at the SEC corrected any of this at the time and now, according to the SEC, WE all have this clear communication to market participants all wrong.

The SEC pointed to Hinman's speech viewable on the SEC's own website as market guidance, as did other commissioners, this is why the SEC's lawsuit against Ripple, Brad and Chris should be viewed in a wider context, i.e. the SEC and its officials should be investigated for deliberately misleading market participants and even fellow commissioners, in what is now clearly the biggest scandal the SEC has ever faced.

The SEC and some of its officials should be seen as the prime suspects in a crime, with at least 65,000 victims.

[Danny]

56 minutes ago, HAL1000 said:

If the head of the SEC appears on TV as SEC CHAIRMAN and not J Clayton random guy has this to say on BTC, then that is expressing to the market the SEC's official position. In a court of law, that's like having a murderer on video committing the crime, whilst holding the bloody knife up at the camera, saying I did it, so a bunch of people later on saying, well it doesn't mean anything in a legal sense, is nonsensical at best and an absolute sign of market manipulation by a criminal element within the SEC.

Either way, good luck getting a judge to see it the way you want it to be perceived, "that video means absolutely nothing judge, honest", rather than the way it actually is. JC and Hinman are both on camera appearing as SEC officials, with SEC logos surrounding them, they KNOWINGLY did this deliberately and nobody at the SEC corrected any of this at the time and now, according to the SEC, WE all have this clear communication to market participants all wrong.

The SEC pointed to Hinman's speech viewable on the SEC's own website as market guidance, as did other commissioners, this is why the SEC's lawsuit against Ripple, Brad and Chris should be viewed in a wider context, i.e. the SEC and its officials should be investigated for deliberately misleading market participants and even fellow commissioners, in what is now clearly the biggest scandal the SEC has ever faced.

The SEC and some of its officials should be seen as the prime suspects in a crime, with at least 65,000 victims.

I can say on TV I've murdered someone and I may even hold a bloody knife, but at the end of the day the judge wants to see evidence (i.e. DNA etc.) that proves I committed the murder. If what Clayton says is true, it must be reflected by SEC policies, protocols or guidelines. However, I'm no expert and you may be right.

[HAL1000]

3 minutes ago, Danny said:

I can say on TV I've murdered someone and I may even hold a bloody knife, but at the end of the day the judge wants to see evidence (i.e. DNA etc.) that proves I committed the murder. If what Clayton says is true, it must be reflected by SEC policies, protocols or guidelines. However, I'm no expert and you may be right.

He didn't say he murdered somebody, the vid shows the murder. As for the DNA:-

 

[HAL1000]