I don't think whether he did or didn't act on it is the point. Did Tim Cook have a reasonable expectation that Cramer wouldn't act on it, and was it an appropriate thing to do in the circumstance.
If no, then SEC.
You didn't mention anything about it going up in your previous post, I'm just responding to the rubbish you're making up here. So now the fact that there's fluctuations prove that there's manipulation going on? You do realise that the stock market goes up and down? That's kind of it's thing. It's what it does. Check back in when you have something resembling actual evidence. I won't hold my breath.
Eventually the market will close? No shit sherlock, it closes every day. What kind of insight is that?
The fact that the market is down is supposed to prove that there's manipulation going on? You're the delusional one if you think this constitutes any form of evidence or proof. It's down for a multitude of reasons, and has been teetering on the edge of a burst for a while now.
Localised manipulation of individual stocks, sure. But the claim was that the entire crash has been engineered by manipulators. Those "90% of big boys" are not colluding to cause a global crash. That's ridiculous talk, and entirely without evidence.