Live data from Hacker News

Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

axios.com

591–600 of 1001 posts

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#591

What's the takeaway from this other than "killing people by giving phony medical test results is just fine, but don't you dare anger the wealthy"?

That proving some things in court is easier than other things and by reducing down nuanced legal systems to "rich bad" doesn't help the situation any.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From former AUSA, and current white-collar defense attorney Ken White: "She faces a max of 65 years (3x20 + 1x5). And it's not at all clear she'll do less than 20." Apparently the sentences will not necessarily be served concurrently. https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1478170494130003976?s=20

Argh! The linked NPR article on that tweet had me yelling at my phone: > It is unusual for tech executives to face criminal changes when their startups collapse under the weight of unrealized promises. That's because it's not illegal to over promise about your future results. It is illegal to lie about simple facts regarding the present state of your business to attract funding. I'm so sick of so many press outlets f…

Absolutely. A bit more fair might be that startups often "collapse under the weight of unrealized DREAMS" :)

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#593
post #591

What's the takeaway from this other than "killing people by giving phony medical test results is just fine, but don't you dare anger the wealthy"?

That proving some things in court is easier than other things and by reducing down nuanced legal systems to "rich bad" doesn't help the situation any.

IIRC the notorious gangster Al Capone was done on tax evasion, not on his main murder-heavy business.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#594
post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't discount the possibility that she'll have her sentence commuted by a future President. Look at the roster of political heavyweights that she was able to attract to the company. It wouldn't surprise me if one or more of these people still have an affinity for her and, at the right time, throw some good words in the President's ears on her behalf.

This disgusts me. The president should not have the power to free anyone from prison. If the laws are broken then (attempt to) change those, but otherwise you’re just saying “yeah, you’re guilty, but I like you so you don’t need to serve your time like everyone else”.

I believe it was originally designed to be a safety valve in the system. A person can be found guilty because the laws are blind, but if a (loud) majority of the population thinks it was a misjustice, the president can fix the situation.

I don't think any of the founding fathers foresaw presidents using their power to pardon their friends. The whole system is extremely vulnerable to an insider attack - very few tools are in place to work around corrupt leaders.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#595
post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't discount the possibility that she'll have her sentence commuted by a future President. Look at the roster of political heavyweights that she was able to attract to the company. It wouldn't surprise me if one or more of these people still have an affinity for her and, at the right time, throw some good words in the President's ears on her behalf.

This disgusts me. The president should not have the power to free anyone from prison. If the laws are broken then (attempt to) change those, but otherwise you’re just saying “yeah, you’re guilty, but I like you so you don’t need to serve your time like everyone else”.

Chelsea Manning?

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#596

What's the takeaway from this other than "killing people by giving phony medical test results is just fine, but don't you dare anger the wealthy"?

Did you know they only ever got Al Capone on tax evasion? Would you draw a similar conclusion in that case, or maybe did the effort put into pinning Capone on tax evasion have more to do with how he was running a murderous criminal organization for many years?

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Skilling of Enron fame got 24 years and was released after 12. That seemed a far worse crime than Theranos IMHO.

> Skilling of Enron fame got 24 years and was released after 12. That's because his original 24 year sentence was reduced to 14 after a Supreme Court case vacated part of his convictions. My bet, based on some calculators I've seen, is that Holmes serves (actually in jail) 14-18 years.

My bet, based on her net worth, is that she'll die of old age before the last round of appeals ends - and serve zero days before that.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know someone who has both beenz and flooz promotional stuff

blinks Do you mean to say that Beenz wasn't a fever dream I enjoyed? Next you'll be telling me that Swatch's Beats was a real, actual attempt at redefining time, and wasn't just something I overheard being invented by a bunch of Jolly People at the pub one night.

The crazy thing is, Beats is a reasonable idea. The whole hype surrounding it was stupid, but a fully-remote-across-seventeen-timezones team would really benefit from a single, well-defined time standard. No more "Can I call you at 8am your time?" "Sorry do you mean my time at home, or my time in Costa Rica (came here for the holidays)"

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#599

What's the takeaway from this other than "killing people by giving phony medical test results is just fine, but don't you dare anger the wealthy"?

Maybe "pragmatic prosecutors made pragmatic decisions instead of satisfying random internet commenters looking for perfect justice."

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#600
post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That proving some things in court is easier than other things and by reducing down nuanced legal systems to "rich bad" doesn't help the situation any.

IIRC the notorious gangster Al Capone was done on tax evasion, not on his main murder-heavy business.

You can't intimidate a lack of tax payments for clearly possessed wealth. Unlike witnesses and accomplices.
Post reply on HN