Comment by kunzhi
6 hours ago
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 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.
That's what people said about trump.
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.