They had no case. That's what I'm trying to argue. The don't need one. If you believe that 2 + 2 = 4 but I have a gun to your head and say that 2 + 2 = 5 then I am right. There is no justice. They don't need to build a case. They just need to maintain the image that they built a case and delivered justice. And people are retarded so they don't notice and proceed as usual. They can literally make a case based on anything they want because no one can stop them. They'll kill you.

One more point. As I mentioned before, these regulators are human. They operate off incentives just like we do. The reason lightning isn't banned MAY simply be because they don't want to lose the revenues they generate off capital gains taxes. If you send bitcoin from an exchange to a base chain address, you can then move that into lightning. Banning lightning on exchanges doesn't stop lightning from being private. So it may not make a big difference to regulators and chainaysis if you withdraw main chain or through lightning. But you are giving these regulators too much credit. They are not as smart as you are making them out to be. If chainalysis can't track lightning because it's impossible, it is in their best interest to hide that information from regulators because they want more money for themselves.

And if we are going to make reaches based on little evidence, you could argue that this is just a psyop to make monero seem like it's more private in order to make bitcoiners think that lightning isn't private. And that makes bitcoiners more likely to pay their capital gains taxes. That's what regulators care about more than anything else after all: money and power. If monero grew in popularity, the potential return on capital gains taxes would be higher. Then regulators would be more likely to add monero back to the exchanges. I'm not saying these things are true but if we are going to make arguments without evidence and just speculation, you can speculate a million different things in millions of directions.