Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tim Draper, One of Theranos' First Investors, Says He Would Back Elizabeth Holmes Again as Chief Science Officer (theoutline.com)

Posted by msmash on from the you've-got-a-friend-in-me dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Despite all her alleged crimes, Elizabeth Holmes, the former CEO of the biotech company Theranos, can rest assured she still has someone who'll go to bat for her. At a panel discussion on growing startup ecosystems at the Montgomery Summit yesterday, Bloomberg reporter Sarah McBride asked Tim Draper -- a venture capitalist, enthusiastic Bitcoin supporter, and one of Theranos' first investors -- whether he would back Holmes again. Draper responded to the question by saying, "I'd back her as chief science officer, not CEO. Good question."

120 comments

  1. The ruling class stick together by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    wish I could say the same about my class.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: The ruling class stick together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compliment censored

    2. Re:The ruling class stick together by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0, Troll

      Who, the deplorables? The cultural distance between progressives and working class people is now vast and I see little reason why that should change.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:The ruling class stick together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, you'd have to get a job before anyone considers you "working class" deplorable crybaby trolls. Not happening. See if Trump will make you a "Crybaby Czar" or something? Bill Shine is out..

    4. Re:The ruling class stick together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chief Science Officer? She dropped out of college at 19 and has no science background. What a moron.

    5. Re:The ruling class stick together by rudy_wayne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Chief Science Officer? She dropped out of college at 19 and has no science background. What a moron.

      That was all part of the Theranos scam. Nobody on their board of directors or in top management had any science or medical background.

    6. Re:The ruling class stick together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who, the deplorables? The cultural distance between progressives and working class people is now vast and I see little reason why that should change.

      The fact that you believe that working class people and progressives are automatically disjoint sets is well part of the problem. There have been so many lies for so long that you have "working class people" defending insane policies. The fact that someone with this home could put on a hat and make working class people think, he's my guy, is so insane as to be practically the definition. Of course his first step to make people think he was their guy was to first start an insane racist lie about the then president. After all to much of his base, well, hating on the uppity black man just proves his credentials, much the same way not denying David Duke did. Add in Charlottesville and he pretty much got a home run in his racist credentials checklist.

    7. Re: The ruling class stick together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would take an uppity moron like her to believe that she with just a few semesters of college could do what countless heavily credentialed people could not. When such a person fails it is an all too common crushing end. In the extremely rare once a century cases where such a person succeeds we name buildings after them and wonder how they succeeded where the experts could not

    8. Re:The ruling class stick together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No,
        It's more a case of a hard cock has no conscience.

    9. Re: The ruling class stick together by anegg · · Score: 2

      Howie Carr: 2020 Democratic candidates share non-working-class background https://www.bostonherald.com/2... (Via Boston Herald)

    10. Re: The ruling class stick together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's letting the little head do the thinking for the big head.

    11. Re:The ruling class stick together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your class is too busy killing each other, cause you know, i need to get my share of stuff in line and that means i will kill you so you don't take it instead.

    12. Re:The ruling class stick together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yo ho ho, may the best robber win! Employee i mean robber of the month! Yarrr!

      Shiver me timbers! The truth hurts so badly, so i will just mod you down!
      heheh - deal with reality, pussies. Better practice thievery and mugging, might come in handy after 'robot takes your job'.

    13. Re: The ruling class stick together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Racist Corporate Progressives sure do love spreading fake news.

    14. Re:The ruling class stick together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does not take a genius to observe that progressives utterly loathe the sight, sound, and smell of the working class. None of their proposed remedies address their needs. In fact they are rarely represented at all. Hell, you just spent most of your comment shitting all over them - and your idea was to disprove his point! :0

    15. Re:The ruling class stick together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The thing you don't understand is that the progressives abandoned the working class, beacuse the working class are too "white heterosexual cisgendered and male." Working class raise issues and are silences or shouted down. Talk about immigration, you are racist. Talk about hate crime laws, you are a bigot. Talk about diversity quotas, you are a sexist. Etc.

      Trump didn't win because he tricked the working class into thinking he was one of them. He won because he talked about issues the working class are deeply concerned about. Combined with how bad of a candidate Hillary was he was a shoe-in to win.

      Your post reeks of "working class are too stupid, that's why they voted for Trump." You are part of the problem. This sentiment is why the working class will never listen to you, or vote for a candidate that acts like you. Your "soilidarity" with the working class is predicated on deep condesencsion and the assumption that they will always vote your way regardless.

    16. Re:The ruling class stick together by drainbramage · · Score: 1

      That's all fine for a monarchy, if you want a monarchy.
      Wasan't the founding of the U.S.A. concerned about turning away from such a system and its class system.
      Before the U.S.A. school system was federalized they often demonstrated that ANYONE could move in or out of the political system.
      Now we're taught that only a magical 'ruling class' has the ability to lead. Wow.
      Now we're taught in Martin Luther King High School to judge based on skin colour, not the content of someone's skin colour.
      Now I'm off to my rewritten history class where they will tell me who to vote for, love my school.

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    17. Re:The ruling class stick together by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Wasan't the founding of the U.S.A. concerned about turning away from such a system and its class system.

      It was more about keeping slavery and being able to tear up British treaties with the natives that were stopping colonial expansion. The 'founding fathers' were all rich slave owners who wanted to keep their privileges, they didn't even let ordinary people vote.

  2. Ethics (or lack thereof) by tomhath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In other words, he only cares about making money. Putting people in danger isn't a concern.

    1. Re: Ethics (or lack thereof) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You nailed it!

    2. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Well, I think with his logic he only cares about losing money.

    3. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      From all reports Holmes was a fairly brilliant CEO (she could convince people to give her lots of money) and completely hopeless at the actual science. If you actually wanted to make money you'd think you'd want to switch the roles: make her CEO and appoint a CSO that reported independently directly to the board.

    4. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Sounds very American to me.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by magarity · · Score: 1

      From all reports Holmes was a fairly brilliant CEO (she could convince people to give her lots of money)

      OK but fundraising is only brilliant for CEOs of charitable organizations and early startups. And you seem to have not heard the part about the corporate jet and the huge mansion paid for by the company. The wild spending kind of cuts back on the usefulness of fundraising ability.

    6. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but he lost millions by backing her fraud. That he supported her all along so far as to go on interviews defending her obvious lies shows that he is a fraud as well and deserves prison time.

    7. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The woman spent two or three semesters at Stanford, then decided she knew all she needed to know.

      I wouldn't trust her to science her way out of a paper bag.
      When I graduated I knew just enough engineering to know what I didn't know. And that's after getting a Masters. I learned a lot more on the job, by watching more experienced people and asking questions. Something I doubt Miss Know-it-all has ever done.

    8. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by gravewax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A brilliant CEO doesn't commit blatant fraud that leads to the destruction of their company. She was a brilliant conman.

    9. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Everybody wants to be a startup these days. Particularly one that goes from zero to 9 billion in a few years. Nobody cares about wild parties, mansions and jets.

      Now, with a brilliant CEO like Holmes you need to pay some attention to your exit strategy, thus the independent CSO. Your guy on the inside, who is not an undergraduate dropout, says things are about to blow, so you make your exit. Modern business at it's finest.

    10. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you think a CEO's only role is to commit fraud and con investors out of their money, I guess a sociopathic college drop-out will do the job.

      maybe the mob needs a CEO for one of the trash collection companies they own.

    11. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While reading your post I got to "when I graduated I knew just enough engineering to know what I didn't know" and was just about to tell you that you must have been an unusually gifted undergraduate.

      When you come out of undergrad you think you know everything. Grad school teaches you that you really don't know anything. A postdoc teaches you that nobody else does either.

    12. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      Some of what was reported about her behavior seems so over-the-top that it's hard to believe. Letting the dog run around in the lab? What the hell, she should never be allowed within 100 miles of anything important.

    13. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      Isn't this how VC funding works: Pure RoI from whatever's in fashion at the moment & nothing else matters? I'm not at all surprised by this story. In fact, I'd bet even if Draper had moral objections to Holmes' prior conduct, he wouldn't be able to say them out loud, let alone to the press, for fear of being ostracised in the world of start-up financing.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    14. Re: Ethics (or lack thereof) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He must just like her a lot. Like a whole lot. Like way too much for us mere mortals to imagine

    15. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When I graduated I knew just enough engineering to know what I didn't know. And that's after getting a Masters. I learned a lot more on the job, by watching more experienced people and asking questions.

      I don't doubt you learned a lot after graduating, but consider this perspective. You spent your time in school learning how to learn. You gathered knowledge and skills to prepare for life after graduation, without necessarily knowing how to put it all together. Doing the latter is a continuing exercise that spans a lifetime.

    16. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you come out of undergrad you think you know everything. Grad school teaches you that you really don't know anything. A postdoc teaches you that nobody else does either.

      +5 Insightful.

      I already ran out of mod points in this discussion. You'd get one if I hadn't.

    17. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      I work with engineering faculty, grad students, and post docs every day. The majority of them seem to think they’re experts in every field - including stuff like graphic design, sales, and interpersonal relationships.

      The ones who don’t think that way, though, are what occasionally makes academia the greatest work environment in the world.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    18. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      They'll fix that on the next pass. I hear they're tweaking the retrovirus on the cloning tank and v.2 will be ready to present venture pitches sometime early fall, with improved science experience and slighly bigger eyes.

    19. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Dunno... a good proportion of the highest paid CEOs seem to do exactly that. Maybe the fraud is a little more on the down low in most cases. I keep hearing how the highest paid CEOs are paid that much because they're the best.

    20. Re: Ethics (or lack thereof) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truer words were never spoken. I think back to what I and many others learned in high school, college, grad school, law school, in various entry level and dead end jobs and it really just helps explain where you eventually end up. I know I learned a lot in school. Anybody who says they didnt is a lying sack of shit. If you learned a lot and still think you have a lifetime of learning ahead of you then you honestly passed the test the first time.

    21. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      From all reports Holmes was a fairly brilliant CEO (she could convince people to give her lots of money)

      That's not a brilliant CEO. That's a con artist.

    22. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep hearing how the highest paid CEOs are paid that much because they're the best.

      CEOs are paid a lot of money because the board of directors, who decides how much the CEO gets paid, is made up almost entirely of CEOs and ex-CEOs of various other companies.

      One hand washes the other. I'll sit on your board and pay you a lot of money, and you'll sit on my board and pay me a lot of money. The blatant and obvious conflict of interest is truly amazing.

    23. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      but he lost millions by backing her fraud. That he supported her all along so far as to go on interviews defending her obvious lies shows that he is a fraud as well and deserves prison time.

      It's one thing to take a chance on a startup. VCs often lose money on startups. That's why they write a contract that pays them a lot money if the company is successful.

      Theranos however, was a completely different story. Read John Carreyou's book. It's quite fascinating. Theranos was completely fraudulent, almost from day one.

    24. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Send 'em to me. I specialize in convincing physicians that they aren't actually demigods. Some of them actually turn out fairly well, once they realize that a mere PhD might know a few things they didn't learn in that six month research fellowship they did.

    25. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Ha ha, bravo. Not only did you detect the dripping sarcasm in my post, you one-upped it. V.2 still prefers black turtlenecks I hope?

    26. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      So you're saying Holmes would also make an excellent board member?

    27. Re: Ethics (or lack thereof) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this is more easily explained by his interest in Bitcoin... he's stupid, so yeah he'll back her again.

    28. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But he was/is getting laid...

      That's all that matters.

    29. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least she knew what to wear. Maybe the homeless should take lessons on how to make people part with their money...

    30. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But she *identifies* as a scientist! Science is about spectrums, so she can choose where she is on the spectrum/ Any objection to this is science-phobic and anti-science!

    31. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's fairly easy to convince people to follow you when you're totally full of Shite though.. Look at Trump.

      Also, its part of the reason why in many companies marketing people are more likely often to become CEO than technical people, because Technical people tend to BS less

    32. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by gravewax · · Score: 2

      No they are much more careful about it, usually keeping it in the grey areas of the law to keep themselves out of the shit. She completely failed at doing that, publicity plus poor management and blatant lies that can't be brushed away made her a fucking awful CEO.

    33. Re: Ethics (or lack thereof) by jdoeii · · Score: 1

      I've met Draper personally, had a couple of conversations with him. I think his problem is not ethics. It's basically medical.

      His mental picture of the world is very different from everyone else's: in his world anything he wants to be true is true. He wants Holmes to be a prosecuted genius and in his world she is. Then he acts on this fact.

      When people praise or attack him for what he says it just feels misplaced. He needs help.

    34. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'ethics' doesn't mean what you think it means. It's the word invented by 'master 'to control the 'slave' - same as religion. Just look at how 'ethical' 'master' behaves.

      (i) Example with religion:
      if you will be 'good' on this earth, eternal paradise awaits you. Be 'good' to your ruling class, not being 'good' is the worst sin you can commit before the god, blah blah blah blah blah ...

      (ii) Example with capitalism/cleptocracy/insert whatever name you prefer:
      if you work hard enough and are 'ethical', you can 'make' it too, be honest hard working and don't talk back to your employers. If you are 'good', eternal paradise ( pension) awaits you.

      Why change the tried and well functioning formula that proved itself during several 1000's of years? In the meantime when all your lies and bullshit accumulates and causes 'crisis' simply go to war with 'eurasia' and TADA - you are back at fresh start, ready to repeat the cycle.

    35. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ". A postdoc teaches you that nobody else does either."

      How about put your money where your mouth is. Go to your boss and tell him before everyone else:
      "You know nothing"

      That's what i thought.

    36. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      A brilliant CEO doesn't commit blatant fraud that leads to the destruction of their company. She was a brilliant conman.

      Next thing you know, she'll buy and bankrupt a few casinos and be the next Republican President of the US ... no, never mind, we're not *that* stupid.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    37. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow i don't think you understand what 'ethics' means. According to various corporations websites they are all very ethical and i do take their word over yours because, who are you exactly? Unimportant worm. I know what 'ethics' means, i learned from the best 'ethical' people.

      How about you stop trying to brainwash people with your bullshit propaganda how 'ethics' is about 'not putting people in danger' ?

    38. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop bashing the elite scientists who are trying to create the better future for all of mankind! If everyone on this planet would be like her things would be a much better and less hostile. How dare you attack the best and the brightest, they are our only hope. Who are you to insult them with unsubstantiated gossip, you should be put on trial and thrown in jail for libel.

      Until you present solid evidence better shut your trap because nobody really cares what some nutcase conspiracy theorist thinks. Your slander won't change anything.

    39. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No. If he cared about money then as an investor he wouldn't back bankruptcy a second time. The real conclusion you can draw from this: "Man with crap judgement declares his judgement remains crap after being burned."

    40. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know a music major who would be perfect for chief security officer.

    41. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to take your meds

    42. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Then the faculty job teaches you that it doesn't really matter because you're going to spend the rest of your career going paperwork.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    43. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to the valley. It’s totally crazy, drop out of Stanford and then you are an
      expert at X. I see this all the time.

      Beeping Tim Ferris is to blame. Sorry Tim but in 6 months someone can’t be an expert at something.

      Would anyone get brain surgery from a Stanford dropout who started a new brain surgery company?

    44. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by jcr · · Score: 1

      By that measure, Ponzi was even better!

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    45. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I was curious whether you're correct. Wikipedia says Ponzi took his "investors" for $20 million in 1920, and Holmes took hers for $700 million in 2013. Ponzi's take in 2013 dollars would be about $233 million. Presumably Holmes had some actual operating expenses to make the thing look good, but CEOs like to talk about revenue as if it was profit, so I think it's fair to say that by CEO-quality metrics Holmes out-Ponzied Ponzi.

    46. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by careysub · · Score: 1

      ". A postdoc teaches you that nobody else does either."

      How about put your money where your mouth is. Go to your boss and tell him before everyone else: "You know nothing"

      That's what i thought.

      That hardly means it isn't true.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    47. Re: Ethics (or lack thereof) by illiac_1962 · · Score: 1

      You didn't hear? She was the victim.

    48. Re: Ethics (or lack thereof) by illiac_1962 · · Score: 1

      There is no help. We used to keep people like that in a room, or drown them.

    49. Re: Ethics (or lack thereof) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is, ponzi only sold a dream. He never had a product or wanted a product.

    50. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) by Strudelkugel · · Score: 1

      Maybe a friend will give Mr. Draper a copy of this book

      If fraud is ever detected at any Draper backed company from now on, investigators will reference his interview with Sarah McBride. A lot of financiers read Bloomberg. A cold chill just blew through Wall Street.

      --
      Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
  3. For sure. Just do the math. captcha:outrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://twitter.com/search?q=T.S.+Ellis&ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Esearch

    DISROBE, TAR, FEATHER

  4. Ego by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Translation: I got conned, but donâ(TM)t want to admit it so here is a diversion. Next question please.

  5. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) - @ TRUMP ADMIN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No no, I'm sure he's just expecting to run the corporation like Republican leadership has shown : The Chief Science Officer is an entirely HONORARY position, predictably to fudge the numbers in favor of business. GOP Capitalism, baby.

    No rules.

  6. Because she's fucking him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why.

  7. Her lying about science was the problem by SmaryJerry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How could you ever trust her to tell the truth on her research again?

    1. Re:Her lying about science was the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tim Draper is saying the truth no longer matters in the era of Trump being president.

    2. Re: Her lying about science was the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My research says hitler teat milk is probably crazy sweet

    3. Re: Her lying about science was the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really am surprised all this time has gone by without him saying anything like it before. Now he has to hit the talk show circuit and backpedal at 100 miles an hour until his face turns two shades hell maybe three or four shades of green. Smh

    4. Re:Her lying about science was the problem by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Because people with bad judgement typically continue to make bad judgments?

  8. he's lost it by crgrace · · Score: 1

    This guy is all in for Bitcoin as well even after it's big drop. I just think he can't accept that he's not the Master of the Universe and his judgement is not infallible.

    1. Re:he's lost it by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      He just really really really really wants to fuck her.

      Everybody's been there, usually not THAT expensive.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:he's lost it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not that expensive either, Trump bought you with nazism and retarded lies. You're a whore lower than any. At least they get actual money.

    3. Re:he's lost it by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Up and down your arms, not across. Get the job done.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:he's lost it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump bought you with nazism and retarded lies. You're a whore lower than any. At least they get actual money. You suck dick on slashdot for free, aww.

    5. Re:he's lost it by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

      Can you blame him? She's not that shabby looking especially when she was younger. Drop the fake man act ie talk in her real voice (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9lp73GNqxE 55 second mark) get some makeup on and ditch the steve jobs outfit and make me forget she's a psychopath and she's quite conventionally attractive.

  9. Some people do not learn by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Excellent example.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  10. There's a family connection by real+gumby · · Score: 4, Informative

    Holmes is a childhood friend of his daughter's, or daughter of his childhood friend or something like that, so he has known her all her life. I can't see how she could have been funded any other way.

    Though this is america where people don't give jobs or security clearences or such to their relatives and friends.

    1. Re:There's a family connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you smoking? Today's America is practically a plutocracy where routinely you will see board of directors elect each other in various companies like one giant circle jerk.

    2. Re:There's a family connection by _merlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you missed the sarcasm. The US likes to pretend to be a meritocracy, while still having these "old boys networks", political families like the Bushes, and every other kind of nepotism and cronyism.

    3. Re:There's a family connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good morning sweet summer child! Slept well i hope?

      Welcome to America, bitch.
      AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  11. There's a Traitor family connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "Old white people network." IE Fox News Network AKA the @REALOfficial White House Traitor-TV Krazy Morning Zoo Krew! *FLUSHING TOILET SOUNDS* Awooooga! (Trapdoor opens) *Strangled noose-gurgling noises* [LAUGH TRACK]

  12. To quote Daffy Duck by quonset · · Score: 1

    Shoot him now! Shoot him now!

  13. NOT a brilliant CEO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    a fairly brilliant CEO (she could convince people to give her lots of money)

    That makes her a brilliant CON ARTIST! A brilliant CEO can direct a company and develop a strategic plan that will enable it to succeed in the future. Unfortunately, I can not think of any contemporary CEOs off of the top of my head that fit that description.

    1. Re: NOT a brilliant CEO! by illiac_1962 · · Score: 1

      Larry Culp. I just hope his most recent undertaking is humanly possible.

  14. A fool and his money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...are soon parted.

  15. Insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Draper's comments are insane. Her behavior was abusive and duplicitous. She lied constantly. Apparently, Draper either can't admit how stupid he was (is) and what a gross error in judgement he made OR he thinks there's no difference between fake science and the real deal. Either way, he's a real piece of work -- just like her.

  16. Tim Draper banged Elizabeth Holmes, obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not a bad looking woman, and apparently corrupt enough to let prospective investors fuck her if it means she got the money.

  17. She must have some dirt on him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chances are he's vulnerable to a #metoo accusation.

    1. Re: She must have some dirt on him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Elephant In The Room

  18. #InternationalWomansDay by supercell · · Score: 1

    Lets not mentions this today. It's counter to the propaganda you know.

  19. Well, considering she was banging... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..the dude running the company with her, I'm guessing she sucks a mean dick, is the *actual* reason.

  20. And he loooves Tesla! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is your typical Tesla fanbois. I can't buy enough puts when this is the counterparty.

  21. Probably because by John+Napkintosh · · Score: 1

    That man has something to hide.

    --

    Long signatures suck.
  22. You misspelled "Confidence Trickster" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe "convince people to give you money" is all you need to run a silly con valley "startup", where you burn through lots of cash until someone buys your company or you cash in on the bullshit valuation at IPO. But everywhere else, taking money off of gullible idiots in return for promises you cannot possibly keep is a crime.

    Everywhere else, the role of the CEO is to set out strategy so that the company has a chance to survive and thrive now and in the future. Ms. Holmes was and is very bad at that. All she brings to the table is transparently false technobabble.

  23. www.webroot.com/safe by KevinSmith6599 · · Score: 1

    webroot com safe – With the development of the digital world, online protection is crucial. It is extremely important to protect your PCs, Mac, computers as well as mobile devices and tablets with webroot com safe. http://www.safe-webroot.com/

  24. Re:Ethics (or lack thereof) - @ TRUMP ADMIN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, it's the GOP which contains all the male and female extreme feminists who promote placing women in positions they aren't qualified for, just because they're women, and then ignore their incompetence. /sarcasm

    What planet are you on???

  25. Draper is an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He made a nut brain proposal to split California in 6. Crazy.

  26. Fools and their money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But there *should* be a limit.

  27. Cocaine is a hell of a drug. by jcr · · Score: 2

    This dude needs rehab, pronto.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  28. Hell of a handjob she must've given him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for him to come back for more.

  29. 60% of the wealth in America is inherited by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    And thanks to recent changes to tax law that percentage is increasing. We're not too far off from Monarchy as is.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  30. You're misunderstanding what working class is by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    it's not "poor". Working class means the majority of your income is derived from work. The ruling class, OTOH, derives their income from ownership. e.g. "rent seeking".

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  31. In summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm rich. I can't be wrong.

  32. Credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who would back Elizabeth Holmes for any position other than inmate should not be trusted.

  33. Are you a venture capitalist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If wealth-generation is the criterion, then I suspect Draper's judgment is objectively better than yours.

  34. By all that's wholly or just decent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What Holmes did with what could civilly be called the Theranos scam was the acts of a psychopath.
    So the justification for hiring a documented psychopath is what?
    I mean, please. I know our leadership class is suffering from a deficit of civility, decency and often sense (the last can reduce their wealth, so of course, justification), but still. This is quite nearly as sick as Holmes. Speaking of whom, apparently she's not suffering from any remorse or contrition but is enjoying the good life.