6 ms·

> Once it was clear this wouldn't go away quietly, I'd bet they pushed hard to ensure criminal prosecution. You're saying that Mattis, Cohen, etc had the abili

> Once it was clear this wouldn't go away quietly, I'd bet they pushed hard to ensure criminal prosecution. You're saying that Mattis, Cohen, etc had the ability to influence decisions within Trump's DoJ and exerted that ability in order to ensure that charges were filed against Holmes in 2018? If so, why do you think this?

MiscIdeaMaker99 5y ago
Because it sounds like a much better story than what probably really happened.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Could be! Because regardless of outside influence, this is the sort of high-profile case that can boost the career of anyone working on prosecution. But I also don't think it's unrealistic or unreasonable to speculate that people who were on the board of directors due to their connections and influence could have used that same influence when things went sour.
kesselvon 5y ago
You don't even have to influence. DoJ is naturally going to take interest when a huge startup that has the Secretary of Defense on the board goes belly up.
- leroy_masochist 5y ago
  Mattis left the Theranos board when he became SecDef and as such was not a board member when charges were filed in 2018.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    I think you can change "has" to "had the current" in that comment and it still makes a reasonable point. I was in a job once where there was a snafu with a relative of a local politician. It didn't take a call from the politician for the CEO to issue an all-hands with a mandate to find out what the heck happened.
    - selestify 5y ago
      Did the politician actually ever check in with the company about whatever happened?
      - ineedasername 5y ago
        Nope: that much I remember. It was over a decade ago & I was only peripherally involved so the details are hazy, but IIRC it was pretty much just the name-drop by the nephew (I think it was a nephew) that got the ball rolling, and we took the initiative from there. I'm pretty sure we reached out to the politician's office to "clear things up".
    - leroy_masochist 5y ago
      I don't think it is a reasonable point to claim without evidence that, as sitting SecDef, Mattis worked behind the scenes to get charges filed against Holmes in order to protect his reputation.
      - ineedasername 5y ago
        I did not make that claim. I speculated that government connections & influence by some of the board members may have played a part in how aggressively prosecution was pursued. Can I ask a question though? It seems we simply disagree here on what is reasonable speculation on the issue, and that's okay, but can I ask why you are focused on Mattis in this? He strikes me as a man of some integrity, and so I highly doubt he would have done anything inappropriate here. Though that very integrity might make him want to get to the bottom of things and therefore make inquiries about how seriously the issue was being handled by the DOJ-- again not in any inappropriate way. Out of the group of directors, I'd think him the least likely to have used his influence to pressure anyone. And there's a big difference between using influence and using pressure. Also in my other comments I mention that it may even only have been passive influence: Having people of that high of a profile attached to a scandal can be enough to have folks at the DOJ and regional prosecutor's office take notice to see what's going on. In which case, to my original point, Holmes' high-profile board of directors worked against her when it came to criminal prosecution. Further, I admit 1) I should have been clearer in my original comment that such passive influence may have been the factor and 2) I was speculating, not making accusations of inappropriate activity. I thought that was clear, but I suppose I'm wrong. Maybe we should simply part ways on this thread in disagreement now, rather than continue what doesn't seem a productive conversation on this topic with each other.
ineedasername 5y ago
If so, why do you think this? Is it not clear that I'm speculating? And is speculating that people with government connections might use them in this situation? After all, that's part of why they were on the board in the first place. Did they actually use that influence? I don't know. But I think it's a reasonable bit of speculation. Influential people using their influence when they're publicly embarrassed shouldn't require much of an imagination. I'm not sure that Trump's presidency is relevant here. The influence these people have would be with others in the government, not Trump.
- leroy_masochist 5y ago
  Got it, so your argument is basically an abstract appeal to cynicism. Not sure why you'd think it's "a reasonable bit of speculation" to baselessly posit that Mattis decided to obstruct justice by reaching out to a regional prosecutor in order to influence the government's decision to prosecute a criminal case.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    Got it, so you're argument is basically that any speculation on an issue is unreasonable. I'm sure you never speculate on anything. It's also not obstruction of justice to ask the DOJ to look into an issue. If a threat was involved in that request then sure-- that's obstruction.
    - leroy_masochist 5y ago
      > you're argument is basically that any speculation on an issue is unreasonable. I'm sure you never speculate on anything I try not to make nonsensical conjectures in public forums, if that is the question you're asking.
      - ineedasername 5y ago
        I don't think it's nonsense the think it's possible, and not too implausible, that influential people placed on a Board due to their influence may actually have used that influence, or that their influence played a passive part in this. (see my other response on that.) Let's part ways on this topic though: You seem to be verging close to personal attacks, and so we've passed the point of useful discussion.

MiscIdeaMaker99 5y ago

Because it sounds like a much better story than what probably really happened.

ineedasername 5y ago
Could be! Because regardless of outside influence, this is the sort of high-profile case that can boost the career of anyone working on prosecution. But I also don't think it's unrealistic or unreasonable to speculate that people who were on the board of directors due to their connections and influence could have used that same influence when things went sour.

kesselvon 5y ago

You don't even have to influence. DoJ is naturally going to take interest when a huge startup that has the Secretary of Defense on the board goes belly up.

leroy_masochist 5y ago
Mattis left the Theranos board when he became SecDef and as such was not a board member when charges were filed in 2018.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  I think you can change "has" to "had the current" in that comment and it still makes a reasonable point. I was in a job once where there was a snafu with a relative of a local politician. It didn't take a call from the politician for the CEO to issue an all-hands with a mandate to find out what the heck happened.
  - selestify 5y ago
    Did the politician actually ever check in with the company about whatever happened?
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      Nope: that much I remember. It was over a decade ago & I was only peripherally involved so the details are hazy, but IIRC it was pretty much just the name-drop by the nephew (I think it was a nephew) that got the ball rolling, and we took the initiative from there. I'm pretty sure we reached out to the politician's office to "clear things up".
  - leroy_masochist 5y ago
    I don't think it is a reasonable point to claim without evidence that, as sitting SecDef, Mattis worked behind the scenes to get charges filed against Holmes in order to protect his reputation.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      I did not make that claim. I speculated that government connections & influence by some of the board members may have played a part in how aggressively prosecution was pursued. Can I ask a question though? It seems we simply disagree here on what is reasonable speculation on the issue, and that's okay, but can I ask why you are focused on Mattis in this? He strikes me as a man of some integrity, and so I highly doubt he would have done anything inappropriate here. Though that very integrity might make him want to get to the bottom of things and therefore make inquiries about how seriously the issue was being handled by the DOJ-- again not in any inappropriate way. Out of the group of directors, I'd think him the least likely to have used his influence to pressure anyone. And there's a big difference between using influence and using pressure. Also in my other comments I mention that it may even only have been passive influence: Having people of that high of a profile attached to a scandal can be enough to have folks at the DOJ and regional prosecutor's office take notice to see what's going on. In which case, to my original point, Holmes' high-profile board of directors worked against her when it came to criminal prosecution. Further, I admit 1) I should have been clearer in my original comment that such passive influence may have been the factor and 2) I was speculating, not making accusations of inappropriate activity. I thought that was clear, but I suppose I'm wrong. Maybe we should simply part ways on this thread in disagreement now, rather than continue what doesn't seem a productive conversation on this topic with each other.

ineedasername 5y ago

If so, why do you think this? Is it not clear that I'm speculating? And is speculating that people with government connections might use them in this situation? After all, that's part of why they were on the board in the first place. Did they actually use that influence? I don't know. But I think it's a reasonable bit of speculation. Influential people using their influence when they're publicly embarrassed shouldn't require much of an imagination. I'm not sure that Trump's presidency is relevant here. The influence these people have would be with others in the government, not Trump.

leroy_masochist 5y ago
Got it, so your argument is basically an abstract appeal to cynicism. Not sure why you'd think it's "a reasonable bit of speculation" to baselessly posit that Mattis decided to obstruct justice by reaching out to a regional prosecutor in order to influence the government's decision to prosecute a criminal case.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Got it, so you're argument is basically that any speculation on an issue is unreasonable. I'm sure you never speculate on anything. It's also not obstruction of justice to ask the DOJ to look into an issue. If a threat was involved in that request then sure-- that's obstruction.
  - leroy_masochist 5y ago
    > you're argument is basically that any speculation on an issue is unreasonable. I'm sure you never speculate on anything I try not to make nonsensical conjectures in public forums, if that is the question you're asking.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      I don't think it's nonsense the think it's possible, and not too implausible, that influential people placed on a Board due to their influence may actually have used that influence, or that their influence played a passive part in this. (see my other response on that.) Let's part ways on this topic though: You seem to be verging close to personal attacks, and so we've passed the point of useful discussion.