Reply With Quote
More you not having any real input other than vomiting an article out and saying "what do you think about this?"
More you not having any real input other than vomiting an article out and saying "what do you think about this?"
That's telling me.
"Secretary of Defense James Mattis is implicated in one of the largest business scandals of the past decades, described by the Securities and Exchange Commission as an “elaborate, years-long fraud” through which Theranos, led by CEO Elizabeth Holmes and president Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, “exaggerated or made false statements about the company’s technology, business, and financial performance.”
Basically, their biotech startup was founded on the promise of faster, cheaper, painless blood tests. But their technology was fake.
Mattis not only served on Theranos’s board during some of the years it was perpetrating the fraud after he retired from US military service, but he earlier served as a key advocate of putting the company’s technology (technology that was, to be clear, fake) to use inside the military while he was still serving as a general."
https://www.vox.com/2018/3/16/171242...os-board-trump
The thread is about a vast array of ethics problems in the Trump administration. Problems you don't care about because the people committing them have the "R" behind their name.
This makes you a disgusting human being. It is fun to rub your nose in your hypocrisy.
Another vomit pile with no comments about it followed by your righteous indignation and virtue signaling.
I can see why you don't comment on the things you post. You still spending your "do something about it" money on beer?
Here's some more from the article that wasnt worth highlighting.
Nothing Trump has actually done since taking office — from provoking a small diplomatic crisis with Australia to accidentally(?) leaking classified Israeli intelligence to the Russian foreign minister to firing his secretary of state on Twitter — has served to debunk the notion that his decision-making process is impulsive and unsound.
In this context, Mattis is near-universally viewed as an island of stability. Respected by the right for having been fired by President Barack Obama, he is also well-informed and (despite the nickname “Mad Dog”) level-headed. Like most career military officers, he is less cavalier about the risks of war than many civilian hawks, and, generally speaking, almost everyone in Washington sleeps better knowing that he is running the Defense Department.
The Theranos thing is a bad look, but there are plenty of Trump Cabinet corruption scandals to talk about — the Ben Carson one is the funniest — so it’s not like Democrats are lacking for general partisan ammunition. If Mattis comes under pressure, he might quit or get fired, and who knows who Trump might tap to replace him.
Under the cir stances, a softball approach to Mattis seems warranted no matter how rotten the signal that sends to the rest of the military, the business community, and the public about the wisdom of getting mixed up in fraudulent endeavors.
That whole "Be careful for what you wish for." thingy.
Not exactly as eye raising as the Vox hit piece. But Vox.
https://taskandpurpose.com/mattis-theranos-questions/
Yeah, unless Mattis explicitly knew it was all bull , it's difficult to say he should be thrown under the bus.
Holmes OTOH got off way too easy.
Holmes and Balwani should be making new, lifelong friends.
The SEC wrist slap of Holmes was ing bull . Steal $70,000 and go to jail for 20 years. Steal 700 million and get a piddly fine.
Agreed.
The guy was not careful about being on a board of directors. Not his area of expertise as a general, so personally I think it is not that big a deal. Worth knowing within that context though.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
