5 ms·

The indictment makes it obvious that this started long before Daraprim was in the news. I'd say this isn't politically motivated, at least not for that reason a

The indictment makes it obvious that this started long before Daraprim was in the news. I'd say this isn't politically motivated, at least not for that reason alone.

fukusa 11y ago
It could have been laying around. "We'll use this when we need to"
- hapless 11y ago
  The indictment makes it clear he's been under SEC investigation for six years. Meanwhile, his former firm is suing him for stealing shareholder's money. Both matters pre-date Skreli's national notoriety, because it was his new, post-Retrophin firm that made him "famous" for price gouging.
  - steveplace 11y ago
    Can you tell me where it says that? I've been looking for details as to when the investigation started but in the document it just lists all the bad things that have happened in the past.
rdancer 11y ago
The alleged crimes would have been investigated under any circumstances. The question is, would the charges be filed if it weren't politically expedient? That this question even has any legitimacy is troubling in and of itself.
peckrob 11y ago
They were investigating him but he was largely unknown outside of some financial and biotech circles. After Daraprim and the subsequent public outrage, not to mention his grating "bro" public persona, he became one of the most hated men in America. They were going to nail him for something as a result of that investigation. Remember, they got Al Capone in the 1930s for tax evasion - not all the other things he was certainly guilty of. Several other gangsters were convicted of things like mail fraud. If you're guilty, or even just under investigation, don't paint a target on your back. A smart person would know to lay low. Schkreli ... didn't.
- aaronbrethorst 11y ago
  Charging someone for what you can prove != 'political motivation.'
  - peckrob 11y ago
    Correct, but who's to say where the investigation would have stopped if they didn't uncover anything at first? If he wasn't so publicly reviled, it may have been dropped if wrongdoing wasn't immediately uncovered. But because he was so out there in public and so publicly reviled, he may have insured that investigators kept looking at him until they did find something they could make stick. I would note that I have no knowledge of the investigation beyond what's being reported (and only a cursory knowledge of that). I could be totally wrong. Maybe these charges were immediately obvious to investigators and it's just taken them almost a year to get their ducks in a row. I'm just theorizing here based on some historical knowledge of famous criminals and how they were eventually brought down (see my comments above on gangsters in the 20s and 30s).

The indictment makes it obvious that this started long before Daraprim was in the news. I'd say this isn't politically motivated, at least not for that reason alone.

fukusa 11y ago

It could have been laying around. "We'll use this when we need to"

hapless 11y ago
The indictment makes it clear he's been under SEC investigation for six years. Meanwhile, his former firm is suing him for stealing shareholder's money. Both matters pre-date Skreli's national notoriety, because it was his new, post-Retrophin firm that made him "famous" for price gouging.
- steveplace 11y ago
  Can you tell me where it says that? I've been looking for details as to when the investigation started but in the document it just lists all the bad things that have happened in the past.

rdancer 11y ago

The alleged crimes would have been investigated under any circumstances. The question is, would the charges be filed if it weren't politically expedient? That this question even has any legitimacy is troubling in and of itself.

peckrob 11y ago

They were investigating him but he was largely unknown outside of some financial and biotech circles. After Daraprim and the subsequent public outrage, not to mention his grating "bro" public persona, he became one of the most hated men in America. They were going to nail him for something as a result of that investigation. Remember, they got Al Capone in the 1930s for tax evasion - not all the other things he was certainly guilty of. Several other gangsters were convicted of things like mail fraud. If you're guilty, or even just under investigation, don't paint a target on your back. A smart person would know to lay low. Schkreli ... didn't.

aaronbrethorst 11y ago
Charging someone for what you can prove != 'political motivation.'
- peckrob 11y ago
  Correct, but who's to say where the investigation would have stopped if they didn't uncover anything at first? If he wasn't so publicly reviled, it may have been dropped if wrongdoing wasn't immediately uncovered. But because he was so out there in public and so publicly reviled, he may have insured that investigators kept looking at him until they did find something they could make stick. I would note that I have no knowledge of the investigation beyond what's being reported (and only a cursory knowledge of that). I could be totally wrong. Maybe these charges were immediately obvious to investigators and it's just taken them almost a year to get their ducks in a row. I'm just theorizing here based on some historical knowledge of famous criminals and how they were eventually brought down (see my comments above on gangsters in the 20s and 30s).