> The real question is: Will Elizabeth serve the purpose of your fund — or by investing in her, will you simply be serving her purpose of writing her rise-from-the-ashes narrative?
I think pretty clearly there are VCs who are quite cognizant that their main advantage is their marketing, and making a big splashy controversial investment serves that marketing well. A16Z don't give a damn if they throw 50m at a bad investment, that's not how the game works- they already know most of their 50m investments will fail, so if that investment can keep their name out there so they get access to the funding rounds of the ones that succeed? It's worth it.
Surely Theranos developed some technology that was useful?
It lasted for 15 years and (as far as I know) employed actual scientists and researchers that were trying to revolutionize blood testing. They must have gotten somewhere right? Even if it wasn't as far as they wanted/claimed?
I don't know much about what Haemanthus is claiming, but could a business be built using whatever technology Theranos developed? Or were they headed down a dead end street with nothing of use along the way?
Theranos was a bit too early to its idea, and while they were flailing around trying to get customers with the Edison, microfluidic testing became a reality. It was done by the "old" medical device companies that Theranos was supposed to disrupt. It turned out they were the competent ones.
It is entirely possible to spend 15 years doing absolutely nothing of value.
Their claim was that they could run hundreds of tests on a mere drop / drops of non-arterial blood, including several that are basically physically impossible due to the makeup of blood in capillaries being different from arteries.
That's still not possible to anything like the original degree of the claim.
Yeah that's true and it's an important distinction. Tests today run on a few microliters of arterial blood, which is "one drop," but to get the right blood they still need to stick a needle in your arm.
I talked to some people in the industry shortly before the scandal broke, there were already rumors and the Glassdoor reviews had many warnings from clearly disgruntled former employees. Their thoughts was that the people there should have known, so either they lacked competence, they were desperate, or they were in on it.
While there are plenty of people looking for the chance to do something great and could do it if given the right environment, I expect Theranos didn’t foster such an environment.
Well, I wouldn't put it that way as long as we're correcting the record. It was always the boring moving dirt company, never pivoted, but it grew a cancer that became Too Big To Fail because it was more profitable than moving dirt.
- it did boring non-tech big industry stuff
- it was good at this
- it started an in-house hedging department (normal)
- they were good at their jobs and accidentally created a massive speculative trading business that fell apart
> bankrupted utilities by causing energy prices to be 20x normal rates
Allegedly this is "good business", something that companies aspire to do (creating an environment where their competitors fail, and they profit big time)
Well, as long as we're correcting the record, I'd point out yes, you get it: there was the in house hedging department that turned into Wolf of Wall Street traders, and there was the dirt movers this small group metastasized on and destroyed.
Working hard doesn't guarantee results. I feel like this is obvious. I would imagine that they never got the thing to work right, or at least not well enough. Even if they did, there's no guarantee it's profitable, much less cost-effective.
Correct. The problem is arrogance doesn't guarantee results either but it sure seems to over-promise to the point of fraud more often than not. Perhaps the Ivy business schools should make an effort to mint MBAs who have real world experience rather churn out Dunning-Kruger effect specimens who believe they have a special monopoly on "the answer".
I remember reading some VC or other came out and said that they picked founders that were over confident, because it was some advantage.
This is the AI result from Google
> Paul Graham and Y Combinator (YC) prioritize determination and ambition over intelligence in selecting founders, often finding success in founders who are overconfident and optimistic. This isn't a mistake; it's a calculated risk based on the belief that persistence and belief in their vision are crucial for overcoming the inevitable challenges of starting a business.
edit: I've just noticed at the bottom of Paul's piece a note about Sam Altman that I think is incredibly accurate - look for hackers (not crackers) - people that find ways to profit by looking at the system in a different way (but they emphasise not to be evil, just naughty)
Have you noticed how many startups get butt-loads of VC money based on a blatantly obvious faulty premise and never succeed?
A solid, responsibly managed company, has no place in the minds of investors.
To me, the problem is that it is almost more lucrative to NOT succeed, unless one can achieve Nvidia-level of success. It is easier to promise the impossible. I profit today but if we scale the unproven business plan 1000X, the profits will be earth shattering!
How the hell do stupid upstart app-based shady loan companies have tens of thousands of employees including thousands of engineers?
From accounts it seems likely that they completely squandered that opportunity covering up for the exaggerations and fraud.
If at the start there had been, at least internally, an honest view of: We have no idea how to do this, existing technology won't do this, we must make a breakthrough-- and then spent 15 years grinding on that then there might be a chance.
But even then it would just be a chance. It might well be the case that what they were promising is only possible through molecular nanotechnology or some other kind of breakthrough that was entirely outside the domain of their research and which has still not yet been accomplished.
Even the new company's pitch supports that: They credit AI as an integral part of their supposed solution. Was Theranos spending those 15 years working on anything we'd call AI today? probably not.
I saw one of those billboards on Ventura Blvd. the other day and wondered what kind of PR scam it was. Who pays for those things? Billboards are pretty expensive around here.
She got got convicted on federal charges, so I think they're targetting Trump for a pardon/commutation. The "MAGA-like" aspect isn't a coincidence, it's deliberately mimics Trump's style to woo him.
This is not a "delusional person does delusional things" kind of situation, but a "manipulative person does manipulative things" kind of situation.
Presumably her husband (or "partner", whether they're legally married is a question of some debate) is paying for it by the way, as Holmes probably doesn't have any funds and he's born to wealth.
> There is no need to denigrate a political faction. It's flamebait and off-topic.
And like witnessing a shooting star, I've witnessed manipulation. What this person was upset about was the insinuation that MAGA is conspiratorially minded. That's bad - can't have people agreeing with that! So they first play at striving for fairness (to poor helpless political parties lol). But realizing it's so just beyond the pale at this point to try to treat MAGA as a good faith actor that it wouldn't fly, they pivot to citing tenuously implicated rules.
If this weren't so poorly executed (and if I hadn't caught the edit) I wouldn't have even noticed but given that it is so poorly executed I gotta wonder whether this is just someone slacking at their botfarm job.
Edit: just so no one can accuse me of making this up, here is the screenshot from my reader app which still has the original comment:
I'm proposing an extremely simple thing: there are no circumstances under which one can read the op (a comment about a billboard about a woman, the same woman all the other comments on this page are about) as having anything other than incidental relation to MAGA. So why browbeat/concern-troll about political flamebait or whatever? The answer I arrive at is the obvious one: someone would prefer that the comment were flagged and removed for "breaking the rules".
> But realizing it's so just beyond the pale at this point to try to treat MAGA as a good faith actor that it wouldn't fly, they pivot to citing tenuously implicated rules.
Lol just like merely calling a protest an insurrection doesn't make it so, merely calling my describing what you literally did "instigation" doesn't make it so (neither for op).
You quoted my hypothesis for why you edited your original comment. I did not imply anything about MAGA, I implied something about you because it is you who is the subject of my comment, not MAGA.
Reading compression is fundamental (although it's a pity we'll be the last generation to learn that): it's my hypothesis about your state of mind when you changed the comment.
What's funny is that you could easily cut this gordian knot by simply setting the record straight and explaining why you changed the comment from the original exhortation to the current litigious one. But you haven't, across 3 more comments lol.
Note that it doesn’t reference any of Theranos’ patents so any relationship between the two companies is purely based on the personal connection of the founders.
> Over the past few years a number of people have reached out to me saying they’ve invented “the Theranos that works,” and several of them have concepts similar to this: apply AI to a mountain of noise and get a thousand test results.
So probably if it works it'll come from someone who's got an earlier start and more than 50M in seed funding.
> “Do you think Haemanthus intends to revolutionize health care, or do you think it’s another fraud?” Once again — neither. I think it’s just another chapter of her narrative.
This is fraud. We need far more accountability, and that means not letting people who have failed and lied about it "narrative" their way out of consequences. Elizabeth Holmes should not be allowed anywhere near healthcare ever again, and that does mean that even people who are merely close to her should be regarded with great scrutiny.
I would assume that in a strict legal capacity that's probably true (for now at least). Although obviously she's "involved".
Is Haemanthus a fraud? Lets just say I think you'd be a right idiot to invest in this.
But I think this will be very hard to prevent legally. Even if Holmes and Evans are married (unclear if they are), it was only Holmes who was involved in Theranos' fraud and not Evans.
Elizabeth Holmes has an 11 year sentence and banned for life for building anything like Theranos again. Not sure what more accountability is necessary.
SBF gave more money to the Dems (Which in itself was enough to convince half this forum that obviously he'll not face any consequences for his actions).
Of course Holmes will have a second act. Just look at Adam Neumann. Goof up, wait it out bit, come back.
To me it seems very obvious that Holmes is slowly but surely building her charm offensive. Nice articles in the New York Times showing her with her husband.
Theranos defrauding people is just an unfortunate footnote in her career.
I would not be surprised if within the next few years we see Holmes in a government position.
> I would not be surprised if within the next few years we see Holmes in a government position
That’s a ridiculous theory and I’d gladly take the other side of that bet. She has zero populist appeal and would never be elected to any office. So it comes down to whether an incumbent would appoint her to some position, and I just don’t see any rational reason why anyone would do that.
> I just don’t see any rational reason why anyone would do that.
Agree, which is why I think I will be correct. Back in August of 2016 I was joking with friends that if Trump won election he would declare his intent to annex Canada. Everyone had a good laugh at that. Now it's not so funny.
I always wonder what are the forces at play in those situations.
Is that the fraudsters are so charismatic/well connected/etc that their past crimes just don’t hold them back?
Or is it a “all notoriety is good notoriety” kind of thing, where even if your fame is due to having been a criminal, that built up name recognition will keep propelling you forward?
Or is it more subtle than this - ie some people have the skills required to appear convincing to smart people, raise lots of money, inspire others to follow them in their ventures, etc - but it just so happens that they also suck at not getting caught up in their own narrative and they end up breaking a bunch of laws in that pursuit?
Like the article says spinning a narrative that "I didn't do anything wrong, it was just so-and-so conspiring to take me down because they were scared of me changing the world!"
I have long deep close experience with people who create similar situations, who have no criminal intent, just a remorseless indefatigable belief that this time it's going to work, and I have witnessed many times that the vaster the vision, the more laws of physics violated, the more absurd the suspension of belief required to hold a narrative in your head, the more passionatley it will inspire certain people who are looking for a quest, a purpose so grand it will rewrite the story of their life in one bold move.
An outlaw romanticism that suggests, if they got away with it, they deserved to get away with it.
Mix in "Persecuted by big government" and "Wealth makes Right" that conservatives love and you've got plenty of ammunition to mount a come back. She will most certainly come back as an outspoken conservative. I don't think she plays the "I was the persecuted women manipulated by an older man" argument that she used in court.
Regardless of the public relations angle it will be the fact that she can bring value to the capitalist class, family connections, name brand (lol). If you can make them money they let you do it.
Comparing Holmes to Neumann is a terrible parallel for obvious reasons to those that understand these matters. You should have used someone like Jeffrey Skilling instead.
https://archive.is/vWelf
The submitted isn't paywalled or down, are you expecting something to happen to it?
Bloody hell, I was only curious! It wasn't paywalled for me, I read it no problem.
Perhaps you are logged in with a "STAT Account"? When I load the link, it prompts me to create one in order to view the article.
Nope, never heard of Stat before. I could read it fine, no paywall, not sure maybe geographic or just hitting different users :shrug:
Interesting, I didn't get that prompt. Read the whole thing fine, no login.
Yup, same, hence my (oh so offensive, apparently) comment asking the reason, assuming it must be something else.
Lucky you, was paywalled for me. Good thing they posted the link.
Ok, yeah, great, I didn't hit that so I was just curious why they did, thinking must be some other reason.
paywalled for me too
Wasn't for me, as I said.
Paywalled.
Wasn't for me, as I said.
> The real question is: Will Elizabeth serve the purpose of your fund — or by investing in her, will you simply be serving her purpose of writing her rise-from-the-ashes narrative?
I think pretty clearly there are VCs who are quite cognizant that their main advantage is their marketing, and making a big splashy controversial investment serves that marketing well. A16Z don't give a damn if they throw 50m at a bad investment, that's not how the game works- they already know most of their 50m investments will fail, so if that investment can keep their name out there so they get access to the funding rounds of the ones that succeed? It's worth it.
If anyone is interested in hearing more about this whistleblower's backstory, I'd highly recommend checking out this podcast series:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/tyler-shultz-theranos-...
Interestingly enough, one of the podcast interviewers is also a co-founder of Y Combinator.
Carolynn Levy is also an managing director (legal) at YC.
Surely Theranos developed some technology that was useful?
It lasted for 15 years and (as far as I know) employed actual scientists and researchers that were trying to revolutionize blood testing. They must have gotten somewhere right? Even if it wasn't as far as they wanted/claimed?
I don't know much about what Haemanthus is claiming, but could a business be built using whatever technology Theranos developed? Or were they headed down a dead end street with nothing of use along the way?
Theranos was a bit too early to its idea, and while they were flailing around trying to get customers with the Edison, microfluidic testing became a reality. It was done by the "old" medical device companies that Theranos was supposed to disrupt. It turned out they were the competent ones.
It is entirely possible to spend 15 years doing absolutely nothing of value.
I mean, not really.
Their claim was that they could run hundreds of tests on a mere drop / drops of non-arterial blood, including several that are basically physically impossible due to the makeup of blood in capillaries being different from arteries.
That's still not possible to anything like the original degree of the claim.
Yeah that's true and it's an important distinction. Tests today run on a few microliters of arterial blood, which is "one drop," but to get the right blood they still need to stick a needle in your arm.
If they did generate anything of value, IP wise, it is an almost certainty that neither she nor her husband have any right to profit off it.
Why? Didn’t they own most of the company?
I talked to some people in the industry shortly before the scandal broke, there were already rumors and the Glassdoor reviews had many warnings from clearly disgruntled former employees. Their thoughts was that the people there should have known, so either they lacked competence, they were desperate, or they were in on it.
While there are plenty of people looking for the chance to do something great and could do it if given the right environment, I expect Theranos didn’t foster such an environment.
how long did enron last before they had to close because of fraud? it was over 20 years i'm pretty sure. that's not a good estimate.
Enron still did things in addition to their fraud.
They ran power plants and fiber optic networks. Those things continued to exist after they went bankrupt.
Were the direct cause of the 2000-2001 California blackouts bankrupting public utilities.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000%E2%80%932001_California...
According to SEC, Madoff started his Ponzi scheme in the early 90s and wasn't arrested until December 2008, about 15 years or so.
Enron started out as a real company doing real things, and only pivoted to fraud later.
Well, I wouldn't put it that way as long as we're correcting the record. It was always the boring moving dirt company, never pivoted, but it grew a cancer that became Too Big To Fail because it was more profitable than moving dirt.
- it did boring non-tech big industry stuff
- it was good at this
- it started an in-house hedging department (normal)
- they were good at their jobs and accidentally created a massive speculative trading business that fell apart
They caused statewide blackouts in California and bankrupted utilities by causing energy prices to be 20x normal rates.
You know, boring stuff like that.
> bankrupted utilities by causing energy prices to be 20x normal rates
Allegedly this is "good business", something that companies aspire to do (creating an environment where their competitors fail, and they profit big time)
I don't think anyone misses that fact. You don't have to keep pointing it out. In the context of this conversation, they also did many other things.
The point of bringing it up is the demonstrate that companies are capable of doing multiple things in the course of their existence.
Well, as long as we're correcting the record, I'd point out yes, you get it: there was the in house hedging department that turned into Wolf of Wall Street traders, and there was the dirt movers this small group metastasized on and destroyed.
Working hard doesn't guarantee results. I feel like this is obvious. I would imagine that they never got the thing to work right, or at least not well enough. Even if they did, there's no guarantee it's profitable, much less cost-effective.
Correct. The problem is arrogance doesn't guarantee results either but it sure seems to over-promise to the point of fraud more often than not. Perhaps the Ivy business schools should make an effort to mint MBAs who have real world experience rather churn out Dunning-Kruger effect specimens who believe they have a special monopoly on "the answer".
> over-promise to the point of fraud more often than not.
Sounds strangely familiar...
I remember reading some VC or other came out and said that they picked founders that were over confident, because it was some advantage.
This is the AI result from Google
> Paul Graham and Y Combinator (YC) prioritize determination and ambition over intelligence in selecting founders, often finding success in founders who are overconfident and optimistic. This isn't a mistake; it's a calculated risk based on the belief that persistence and belief in their vision are crucial for overcoming the inevitable challenges of starting a business.
Although this piece https://paulgraham.com/founders.html only talks about the importance of determination
edit: I've just noticed at the bottom of Paul's piece a note about Sam Altman that I think is incredibly accurate - look for hackers (not crackers) - people that find ways to profit by looking at the system in a different way (but they emphasise not to be evil, just naughty)
> but they emphasise not to be evil, just naughty
Based on the trajectory many silicon valley companies seem to take, the slope from "naughty" to "evil" must be very slippery
It's a shame that companies don't seem to be able to be competitive if they behave morally
Kind of an awful society we're living in as a result
I don't disagree with you, but I don't know how you'd ensure that some founder was only going to stay in the naughty, not evil, lane.
Well, apart from the - already done evil things, like worked for Google... ;-)
Have you noticed how many startups get butt-loads of VC money based on a blatantly obvious faulty premise and never succeed?
A solid, responsibly managed company, has no place in the minds of investors.
To me, the problem is that it is almost more lucrative to NOT succeed, unless one can achieve Nvidia-level of success. It is easier to promise the impossible. I profit today but if we scale the unproven business plan 1000X, the profits will be earth shattering!
How the hell do stupid upstart app-based shady loan companies have tens of thousands of employees including thousands of engineers?
From accounts it seems likely that they completely squandered that opportunity covering up for the exaggerations and fraud.
If at the start there had been, at least internally, an honest view of: We have no idea how to do this, existing technology won't do this, we must make a breakthrough-- and then spent 15 years grinding on that then there might be a chance.
But even then it would just be a chance. It might well be the case that what they were promising is only possible through molecular nanotechnology or some other kind of breakthrough that was entirely outside the domain of their research and which has still not yet been accomplished.
Even the new company's pitch supports that: They credit AI as an integral part of their supposed solution. Was Theranos spending those 15 years working on anything we'd call AI today? probably not.
There are billboards on 101 directing people to Holmes’ MAGA-like post truth website that declares she is ‘proven innocent’
I saw one of those billboards on Ventura Blvd. the other day and wondered what kind of PR scam it was. Who pays for those things? Billboards are pretty expensive around here.
I assume she is paying for the billboards.
So the website seems to be https://justblood.com (?)
She got got convicted on federal charges, so I think they're targetting Trump for a pardon/commutation. The "MAGA-like" aspect isn't a coincidence, it's deliberately mimics Trump's style to woo him.
This is not a "delusional person does delusional things" kind of situation, but a "manipulative person does manipulative things" kind of situation.
Presumably her husband (or "partner", whether they're legally married is a question of some debate) is paying for it by the way, as Holmes probably doesn't have any funds and he's born to wealth.
[dead]
Please don't instigate political arguments.
Right before I refreshed this comment said
> There is no need to denigrate a political faction. It's flamebait and off-topic.
And like witnessing a shooting star, I've witnessed manipulation. What this person was upset about was the insinuation that MAGA is conspiratorially minded. That's bad - can't have people agreeing with that! So they first play at striving for fairness (to poor helpless political parties lol). But realizing it's so just beyond the pale at this point to try to treat MAGA as a good faith actor that it wouldn't fly, they pivot to citing tenuously implicated rules.
If this weren't so poorly executed (and if I hadn't caught the edit) I wouldn't have even noticed but given that it is so poorly executed I gotta wonder whether this is just someone slacking at their botfarm job.
Edit: just so no one can accuse me of making this up, here is the screenshot from my reader app which still has the original comment:
https://imgur.com/a/njjy4Fd
Edit 2: in case this person edits again, the comment currently reads
> Please don't instigate political arguments.
There were at least 3 edits. I think the original was something along the lines of it being a statement against a political party.
I don't think it is worth debating.
> statement against a political party
I'm proposing an extremely simple thing: there are no circumstances under which one can read the op (a comment about a billboard about a woman, the same woman all the other comments on this page are about) as having anything other than incidental relation to MAGA. So why browbeat/concern-troll about political flamebait or whatever? The answer I arrive at is the obvious one: someone would prefer that the comment were flagged and removed for "breaking the rules".
> But realizing it's so just beyond the pale at this point to try to treat MAGA as a good faith actor that it wouldn't fly, they pivot to citing tenuously implicated rules.
Please don't instigate political arguments.
Lol just like merely calling a protest an insurrection doesn't make it so, merely calling my describing what you literally did "instigation" doesn't make it so (neither for op).
I quoted the part that is instigating a political argument.
You quoted my hypothesis for why you edited your original comment. I did not imply anything about MAGA, I implied something about you because it is you who is the subject of my comment, not MAGA.
Allow me to use my top-secret CSI computer to enhance:
> beyond the pale at this point to try to treat MAGA as a good faith actor
Reading compression is fundamental (although it's a pity we'll be the last generation to learn that): it's my hypothesis about your state of mind when you changed the comment.
What's funny is that you could easily cut this gordian knot by simply setting the record straight and explaining why you changed the comment from the original exhortation to the current litigious one. But you haven't, across 3 more comments lol.
Please refrain from including swipes in your posts.
Here is a link to the patent that Haemanthus is working off:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/10/business/Haem...
Note that it doesn’t reference any of Theranos’ patents so any relationship between the two companies is purely based on the personal connection of the founders.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me
> Over the past few years a number of people have reached out to me saying they’ve invented “the Theranos that works,” and several of them have concepts similar to this: apply AI to a mountain of noise and get a thousand test results.
So probably if it works it'll come from someone who's got an earlier start and more than 50M in seed funding.
There is always enough for the needy, there is never enough for the greedy. -Mahatma Gandhi
> “Do you think Haemanthus intends to revolutionize health care, or do you think it’s another fraud?” Once again — neither. I think it’s just another chapter of her narrative.
This is fraud. We need far more accountability, and that means not letting people who have failed and lied about it "narrative" their way out of consequences. Elizabeth Holmes should not be allowed anywhere near healthcare ever again, and that does mean that even people who are merely close to her should be regarded with great scrutiny.
According to their "X" account, "Elizabeth Holmes has zero involvement in Haemanthus": https://xcancel.com/haemanthusinc/status/1921644626085024047...
I would assume that in a strict legal capacity that's probably true (for now at least). Although obviously she's "involved".
Is Haemanthus a fraud? Lets just say I think you'd be a right idiot to invest in this.
But I think this will be very hard to prevent legally. Even if Holmes and Evans are married (unclear if they are), it was only Holmes who was involved in Theranos' fraud and not Evans.
> should not be allowed
This is a weird thing to say about someone serving a decade long prison sentence
Agreed. To me, this is the unusual case where individuals in corporations are actually punished. Most cases are way worse.
Elizabeth Holmes has an 11 year sentence and banned for life for building anything like Theranos again. Not sure what more accountability is necessary.
Unless you want to get involved in who she dates.
So, what you're saying is that she's one stroke of the president's pen away from being back in the game?
I think the going rate for them for white collar conmen is currently ~2 million.
If Trevor Milton, who faked his EV truck by rolling it down a hill can get one, but sbf couldn't, then I guess it's 50/50.
SBF gave more money to the Dems (Which in itself was enough to convince half this forum that obviously he'll not face any consequences for his actions).
Of course Holmes will have a second act. Just look at Adam Neumann. Goof up, wait it out bit, come back.
To me it seems very obvious that Holmes is slowly but surely building her charm offensive. Nice articles in the New York Times showing her with her husband.
Theranos defrauding people is just an unfortunate footnote in her career.
I would not be surprised if within the next few years we see Holmes in a government position.
> I would not be surprised if within the next few years we see Holmes in a government position
That’s a ridiculous theory and I’d gladly take the other side of that bet. She has zero populist appeal and would never be elected to any office. So it comes down to whether an incumbent would appoint her to some position, and I just don’t see any rational reason why anyone would do that.
> That’s a ridiculous theory
> I just don’t see any rational reason why anyone would do that.
Agree, which is why I think I will be correct. Back in August of 2016 I was joking with friends that if Trump won election he would declare his intent to annex Canada. Everyone had a good laugh at that. Now it's not so funny.
That's what people said about trump.
> That’s a ridiculous theory
Yeah she's not even a Fox News host yet. She needs to be on TV for at least a couple of years before Trump gives her a job.
I always wonder what are the forces at play in those situations.
Is that the fraudsters are so charismatic/well connected/etc that their past crimes just don’t hold them back?
Or is it a “all notoriety is good notoriety” kind of thing, where even if your fame is due to having been a criminal, that built up name recognition will keep propelling you forward?
Or is it more subtle than this - ie some people have the skills required to appear convincing to smart people, raise lots of money, inspire others to follow them in their ventures, etc - but it just so happens that they also suck at not getting caught up in their own narrative and they end up breaking a bunch of laws in that pursuit?
It’s fascinating.
Like the article says spinning a narrative that "I didn't do anything wrong, it was just so-and-so conspiring to take me down because they were scared of me changing the world!"
I have long deep close experience with people who create similar situations, who have no criminal intent, just a remorseless indefatigable belief that this time it's going to work, and I have witnessed many times that the vaster the vision, the more laws of physics violated, the more absurd the suspension of belief required to hold a narrative in your head, the more passionatley it will inspire certain people who are looking for a quest, a purpose so grand it will rewrite the story of their life in one bold move.
An outlaw romanticism that suggests, if they got away with it, they deserved to get away with it.
Mix in "Persecuted by big government" and "Wealth makes Right" that conservatives love and you've got plenty of ammunition to mount a come back. She will most certainly come back as an outspoken conservative. I don't think she plays the "I was the persecuted women manipulated by an older man" argument that she used in court.
Regardless of the public relations angle it will be the fact that she can bring value to the capitalist class, family connections, name brand (lol). If you can make them money they let you do it.
I think it was Lalo from Breaking Bad who said it - when they're an "earner," they can get away with it.
Comparing Holmes to Neumann is a terrible parallel for obvious reasons to those that understand these matters. You should have used someone like Jeffrey Skilling instead.
I was at WeWork the day the news broke about Neumann. :)
Jeff Skilling is also high on my list of bad boys.