Hillary Clinton Lets Scandal-Plagued Corporation Throw Her a Fund-raiser, for Some Stupid Reason

[n2doc]

By Eric Levitz


Theranos is a unicorn that may soon be sent to the glue factory. The biotech start-up was once the toast of Silicon Valley. Its signature technology — a blood-testing machine so sensitive it requires a mere pinprick of blood to make accurate diagnoses — attracted a $9 billion valuation. The company’s 31-year-old CEO, Elizabeth Holmes, was celebrated in a thousand admiring profiles and made headline appearances at prestigious conferences like, for example, the Clinton Foundation’s 2015 “Health Matters” summit. And then, last October, The Wall Street Journal revealed that the company’s breakthrough technology doesn’t actually work.

In recent days, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services found that the company’s lab in Newark, California, was in violation of five federal regulations, thereby posing “immediate jeopardy to patient health and safety." Last week, the release of that investigation’s full report revealed that “quality control issues” may have compromised the blood-test results of 81 patients.

These revelations have cost Theranos many investors, commercial partners, and board members — among them Henry Kissinger, ex-secretary of State George P. Schultz, and former U.S senator Sam Nunn. But for god knows what reason, it hasn’t cost the company the chance to host a fund-raiser for the Democratic front-runner. Next week, Chelsea Clinton will join Holmes at Theranos’s Palo Alto headquarters to help raise money for her mother’s campaign. According to an email obtained by Re/code, the event will be held next Monday night and will cost most attendees $2,700 a head.

One of Clinton’s primary liabilities in her race against Bernie Sanders is the perception that she is overly friendly with corrupt corporate interests. So it's pretty bizarre that she has decided to have a (reportedly) corrupt corporation host her next big fund-raiser. And it’s only one of several unforced errors the campaign has made since last Friday.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/clinton-lets-theranos-throw-her-a-fund-raiser.html

[Skwmom]

1. This isn't the only example They DO NOT CARE. The corporate media is not going to tell anyone.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

2. Are there members here you think are going to change their minds about Hillary

and vote Bernie in the primary?

Must be, otherwise the motive for posting these things means something else.

[gcomeau]

3. One would hope...

...that the people here base their decisions on the available data and thus are open to changing those opinions when presented with additional data. You know... the reality based community.


Are you implying that this is not the case, at least among Hillary supporters?

[Jackie Wilson Said]

4. I am stating that there are only two reasons to continue to post negative

information about a candidate on this forum.

One is to persuade others to vote for your candidate (although Bernie Sanders himself says negative advertising is the wrong way to go about that) and the other is to cause permanent harm to candidate Hillary so even if she is the nominee she will lose in November.

[gcomeau]

6. Uh-huh...

...and the implication seemed to be that voters that could be persuaded were perhaps not to be found here and thus we should suspect it was the other reason.


Were you not intending to imply that? Because if so then we can both just agree we're still trying to get people to support the correct candidate... this being a primary and all and that being what they are for... and move along can't we?

[Jackie Wilson Said]

7. Not imply it, stating it outright. Clearly many here have an agenda of destroying

HRC chance of winning period.

Many.

As to the primary, I sure hope Bernie wins.

[gcomeau]

8. Ah, so you ARE saying Clinton supporters...

...do not base their support on facts and are unpersuadable by data...


How fascinating.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

10. Where did I say that? Are you then admitting that any criticism of Bernie is ignored

by Bernie supporters?

Let's not play games, some people here at this forum, quite a few, have an agenda to make sure Hillary is not president, no matter who is.

[gcomeau]

13. When I asked if you were implying it.

And you responded that you were not implying it you were stating it outright.


Words. They mean things.

[FlatBaroque]

11. Do not try logic and reason

with outrage clown

[H2O Man]

12. The truth is

that many intelligent, thoughtful, and sincere members of the Democratic Party honestly believe that Hillary Clinton can not win a general election. There are many reasons for this; among them is her extremely high "negatives." Hence, they express their honest opinions.

So far as I can see -- and, admittedly, I have nor read every OP/thread on DU"GDP -- those friends who support Hillary Clinton have not responded to this, other than to say all of her negatives are a direct response of republican attacks dating from the 1990's. As this is not accurate, the Sanders supporters will continue to speak about the very real problems they see with both Hillary Clinton and her campaign.

I have read a series of your contributions to the various discussions here. I respect you as an intelligent, capable supporter of Hillary Clinton. Although I do support Bernie Sanders, I also wish that you (and others) would focus on discussing some of the legitimate concerns that people have expressed.

Thank you for your consideration.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

14. Those who do stats for a living disagree with you

http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-democratic-nomination

[H2O Man]

16. Well, thank you

for at least allowing me more insight on your thinking.

Good luck to you and your's tomorrow.

[gcomeau]

17. Generous to a fault aren't you?

I mean you make a reasoned plea for them to consider the arguments and concerns being presented, they respond with what amounts to a declaration that "SHE'S GONNA WIN!" that contains no indication that they even registered the words you typed.

And you call it thinking.

More charitable than I would have been. Lots more charitable.

[H2O Man]

19. Right.

There is a blockage that prevents that level of communication.

[Its Got Electrolytes]

18. What was their prediction last week for MI?

99% for Clinton?

This week's prediction was at 93% for Clinton, correct?

[tk2kewl]

20. You do know that the outside world can find info on DU as will, right?

Hillary supporters here might not be moved by info about how she funds her campaign, but people using the googles might.

[Punkingal]

15. What is your problem?

People post things they want to have a discussion about.

[Maedhros]

5. Money trumps integrity. [n/t]

[FlatBaroque]

9. Hillary checked before hand and was assured that

their money was, in fact, green.

[EndElectoral]

21. You know it's bad when Kissinger abandons it. HRC, better talk to your friend about this one.

[Mudcat]

22. One can imagine fundraisers from Halliburton & Academi next

[Babel_17]

23. K&R so more people can see it

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/business/theranos-facing-criticism-says-it-has-changed-board-structure.html

Three separate snips from that article:

The medical laboratory Theranos, facing skepticism about the accuracy of its tests, is planning to announce that it has reduced the size of its unusual board of directors, eliminating members like Henry A. Kissinger and George P. Shultz.

Skeptics have also focused on the company’s board, which with one possible exception was notably lacking in people with expertise in medical testing. Besides aging former cabinet members like Mr. Kissinger and Mr. Shultz, the board included the former senators Sam Nunn and Bill Frist, a retired general, and a retired admiral.

All the members of the old board, including Mr. Kissinger, Mr. Nunn and Mr. Shultz, have become members of a newly formed board of counselors, which will still give advice to the company. Theranos has also formed another board to give medical advice.

What a tight knit group it is, at the top.

[dana_b]

24. I just read this online

and I can't understand why she would want the money from this company. They are putting patient lives secondary to profits.