Hillary Clinton’s Protogé Faces Decades In Prison On Billion Dollar Fraud Charges


Elizabeth Holmes, who donated to Hillary Clinton's campaign and was described as her "protogé", has been arrested on fraud charges.

Elizabeth Holmes, the CEO of medical startup Theranos, who donated big dollar sums to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and was described by Hillary as her “protogé”, has been arrested on billion dollar wire fraud charges and is expected to spend decades in prison. 

 Holmes, 34, is the “self-made billionaire” head of a company that was valued at $9 billion, which was at the time more than Uber or Spotify. Its Edison platform promised a revolutionary blood test that only required a finger prick as opposed to blood drawn from a vein.

 Barack Obama appointed her as a Presidential Ambassador for Global Entrepreneurship. She buddied up closely with Hillary, and raised big money for her doomed presidential run. Bill Clinton interviewed her in an event for the Clinton Global Initiative and told the world Holmes was going to bring “equality” to the healthcare industry. Instead, like the Clinton Foundation, she has been exposed as a total fraud.

 The Clinton’s friends just keep getting arrested. The network is being slowly but surely untangled. The corrupt Clinton Foundation, the holy grail of honest investigators, is now in their crosshairs.

 Western Journal reports: On Friday, Holmes was indicted on wire fraud charges by federal prosecutors in the Northern District of California. Theranos is very close to being liquidated, basically having lapsed into “Enron 2: Electric Boogaloo.”

 As it turned out, Holme’s “revolutionary platform” could barely perform a few of the 240 tests the company had promised, and even then it didn’t perform them well. As Vanity Fair reports, Holmes, 34, could be spending decades in jail, all because the company she started in 2003 after dropping out of Stanford apparently turned out to be little more than a way to spend investors’ dollars, poorly.

“According to the indictment, Holmes and (Theranos COO and president Ramesh) Balwani used advertisements and solicitations to encourage and induce doctors and patients to use Theranos’s blood testing laboratory services, even though the defendants knew Theranos was not capable of consistently producing accurate and reliable results for certain blood tests,” a statement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office read. “The tests performed on Theranos technology, in addition, were likely to contain inaccurate and unreliable results.”

“The indictment alleges that the defendants used a combination of direct communications, marketing materials, statements to the media, financial statements, models, and other information to defraud potential investors. Specifically, the defendants claimed that Theranos developed a revolutionary and proprietary analyzer that the defendants referred to by various names, including as the TSPU, Edison, or minilab. The defendants claimed the analyzer was able to perform a full range of clinical tests using small blood samples drawn from a finger stick. The defendants also represented that the analyzer could produce results that were more accurate and reliable than those yielded by conventional methods — all at a faster speed than previously possible.”

 In addition to the criminal indictment, Holmes has already agreed to pay a civil penalty of $500,000 to the Securities and Exchange Commission for fraud in an agreement that mandated she not be able to head a public company for 10 years. (Theranos is a privately held company, although Holmes stepped down as CEO on Friday after her indictment.)

 So, how did Elizabeth Holmes sucker so many people? It’s worth noting that this is a bipartisan scandal in many ways. Before he became defense secretary, James Mattis served on Theranos’ board, as did former Reagan administration Secretary of State George Shultz. (Shultz’s grandson was one of the whistleblowers on Theranos’ alleged illegal activity, according to The Wall Street Journal.) According to The New York Times, media mogul Rupert Murdoch and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos lost huge amounts of money in the enterprise.

 However, each of them seemed to have been taken either by the science behind Theranos’ device or the possible applications for it (in the case of Shultz and Mattis) or because it represented a prime investment opportunity (in the case of Murdoch and DeVos).

 When it comes to Bill and Hillary Clinton and Obama, however, things get a bit murkier.

 It probably won’t surprise you, given that she helmed a Silicon Valley startup, that Holmes was a Clinton donor. Not only that, but Hillary Clinton had planned to host a fundraiser at Theranos until media attention forced her to host it elsewhere. (Even liberals were embarrassed.) The planned $2,700 a head event was to feature Chelsea Clinton, but apparently even the media couldn’t ignore the fact that she was hosting an event at a company that was under federal investigation.

“(The event) is not connected to a specific company or policy, but a chance to talk directly to women in tech,” Clinton’s campaign said at the time, according to the Washington Free Beacon. “We frequently send initial invitations while host committees are still being formed and locations finalized. This was never a health care event and the location wasn’t set. It will not be at Theranos.”

 That was hardly the only contact that the Clintons had with her, however. When Bill Clinton interviewed Holmes in 2015 for his Clinton Global Initiative, an arm of the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation, he noted that she started the company when she was only 19.

“Don’t worry about the future, we’re in good hands,” Clinton said. Holmes, for her part, talked about bringing “equality” to health care.

 President Obama went even further than the Clintons in embracing Holmes. In 2015, he invited the CEO to the White House, where he made her a Presidential Ambassador for Global Entrepreneurship. If you’re wondering what a Presidential Ambassador for Global Entrepreneurship does, it’s stuff like this PSA:

 So, what’s the overarching point here? Why would Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration get so involved with Holmes? We don’t necessarily impugn their judgment on her company’s viability, inasmuch as almost nobody knew it was a fraud.

 On the other hand, they didn’t really seem to care whether it was or not. Hillary Clinton’s campaign wanted to hold a campaign event at Theranos well after it became clear, thanks to The Wall Street Journal’s reporting, that the company was suspected at least of some very shady things.

 The fact was that Elizabeth Holmes was a Democrat’s dream.

 Here was a young, millennial woman CEO saying all the right things about breaking the glass ceiling and instituting “equality “in health care. So what if her product was promising things that seemed impossible? So what if her company was under investigation? After all, she just brushed it off as the ossified medical establishment coming after her company. She was great copy.

 And so, in a way deeper than Theranos’ investors or board members did, they co-signed Holmes’ reputation as the next Steve Jobs. The great thing for the Democrat mind was that the next Jobs came in a package that echoed all of their political prejudices. Or, in a kind of corruption of philosophy and politics that’s worse — and deeper — than financial misdealing, was it that she was the next Steve Jobs because she echoed all of their political preferences?

 We’ll probably never know the answer to that chicken-or-egg question. We do know one thing for sure, however:

 If only Hillary Clinton and Obama had waited a little while, they’d have figured out they were dealing not with a Steve Jobs but instead a Kenneth Lay.

https://yournewswire.com/hillary-clinton-protoge-fraud-charges/

Views: 24

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I love how the ones who cry and complain about that so-called glass ceiling are the very ones rising above and looking down on the imaginary ceiling, proving there is no such thing.

 Jean,

 This whole thing I just shared is new to me, it was like wow!! cause I did not know, and I do not pretend that I know it all. And yep, the crying has started, hope to see Hillary in the house behind bars.

LOL Tif

ditto to that, Tif.  That is where she belongs.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service