ADVERTISEMENT

Mattis and Theranos

iu_a_att

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 20, 2001
7,868
2,115
113
It seems nobody associated with Trump is clean. [whispers] But we shouldn't talk about Mattis[/whispers]
https://www.vox.com/2018/3/16/17124288/mattis-theranos-board-trump
But by the time Mattis was selected to serve as Trump’s secretary of defense in January 2017, the basic scope of the fraud was already well-known to the public thanks to diligent journalistic work. So was the fact that Mattis was not only earning $150,000 a year for his service on the Theranos board but was also involved in pro-Theranos advocacy while on active military duty.

He duly resigned from Theranos on January 5, 2017 — by which time the company was already commonly described as “embroiled in scandal” by press reports — but, remarkably, the whole affair didn’t come up at his confirmation hearings.

It’s not exactly rare for members of a corporate board of directors to serve as window dressing with no actual involvement in or knowledge of a company’s operations, so the mere fact that the whole company was a giant scam doesn’t necessarily reflect any action on Mattis’s part. That said, at least in theory, directors are supposed to do something, and serving as window dressing for a massive fraud is the kind of thing that normally reflects poorly on a person’s reputation.

What’s more, as Paul Szoldra writes at Task and Purpose, pre-retirement Mattis genuinely seems to have been actively involved in trying to help Theranos bypass the regulatory process:

“I would very much appreciate your help in getting this information corrected with the regulatory agencies,” Holmes wrote in an email to Mattis, also obtained by the Post. “Since this misinformation came from within DoD, it will be invaluable if this information is formally corrected by the right people in DoD.”

The general then forwarded the email chain on and asked, “how do we overcome this new obstacle?”

“I have tried to get this device tested in theater asap, legally and ethically,” Mattis wrote. “This appears to be relatively straight-forward yet we’re a year into this and not yet deployed.”

Yet even with the SEC now throwing the book at the company, nobody in Congress is interested in asking Mattis what, exactly, he knew about Theranos and when. And the worst thing about it is their inclination to treat him with kid gloves makes a lot of sense.​
 
It seems nobody associated with Trump is clean. [whispers] But we shouldn't talk about Mattis[/whispers]
https://www.vox.com/2018/3/16/17124288/mattis-theranos-board-trump
But by the time Mattis was selected to serve as Trump’s secretary of defense in January 2017, the basic scope of the fraud was already well-known to the public thanks to diligent journalistic work. So was the fact that Mattis was not only earning $150,000 a year for his service on the Theranos board but was also involved in pro-Theranos advocacy while on active military duty.

He duly resigned from Theranos on January 5, 2017 — by which time the company was already commonly described as “embroiled in scandal” by press reports — but, remarkably, the whole affair didn’t come up at his confirmation hearings.

It’s not exactly rare for members of a corporate board of directors to serve as window dressing with no actual involvement in or knowledge of a company’s operations, so the mere fact that the whole company was a giant scam doesn’t necessarily reflect any action on Mattis’s part. That said, at least in theory, directors are supposed to do something, and serving as window dressing for a massive fraud is the kind of thing that normally reflects poorly on a person’s reputation.

What’s more, as Paul Szoldra writes at Task and Purpose, pre-retirement Mattis genuinely seems to have been actively involved in trying to help Theranos bypass the regulatory process:

“I would very much appreciate your help in getting this information corrected with the regulatory agencies,” Holmes wrote in an email to Mattis, also obtained by the Post. “Since this misinformation came from within DoD, it will be invaluable if this information is formally corrected by the right people in DoD.”

The general then forwarded the email chain on and asked, “how do we overcome this new obstacle?”

“I have tried to get this device tested in theater asap, legally and ethically,” Mattis wrote. “This appears to be relatively straight-forward yet we’re a year into this and not yet deployed.”

Yet even with the SEC now throwing the book at the company, nobody in Congress is interested in asking Mattis what, exactly, he knew about Theranos and when. And the worst thing about it is their inclination to treat him with kid gloves makes a lot of sense.​
The people on that board were also defrauded.
 
Why do you say that?
I only heard about the story yesterday on the radio, I believe NPR or POTUS, and essentially the lady that was supposedly the next Steve Jobs had fooled them and hundreds of investors Into believing in her biotech breakthrough that turned out to be totally bogus. There were lots of big name true believers in the Board who were snookered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1
I only heard about the story yesterday on the radio, I believe NPR or POTUS, and essentially the lady that was supposedly the next Steve Jobs had fooled them and hundreds of investors Into believing in her biotech breakthrough that turned out to be totally bogus. There were lots of big name true believers in the Board who were snookered.
I didn't hear any of that. Think you could provide a link? The allegation in the article is also that Mattis was trying to get the military to buy in. That looks like a clear conflict of interest.
 
I didn't hear any of that. Think you could provide a link? The allegation in the article is also that Mattis was trying to get the military to buy in. That looks like a clear conflict of interest.
I don’t follow. If he truly thought it was a revolutionary technology and was trying to get the military to buy in, why would that be a conflict of interest?
 
It seems nobody associated with Trump is clean. [whispers] But we shouldn't talk about Mattis[/whispers]
https://www.vox.com/2018/3/16/17124288/mattis-theranos-board-trump
But by the time Mattis was selected to serve as Trump’s secretary of defense in January 2017, the basic scope of the fraud was already well-known to the public thanks to diligent journalistic work. So was the fact that Mattis was not only earning $150,000 a year for his service on the Theranos board but was also involved in pro-Theranos advocacy while on active military duty.

He duly resigned from Theranos on January 5, 2017 — by which time the company was already commonly described as “embroiled in scandal” by press reports — but, remarkably, the whole affair didn’t come up at his confirmation hearings.

It’s not exactly rare for members of a corporate board of directors to serve as window dressing with no actual involvement in or knowledge of a company’s operations, so the mere fact that the whole company was a giant scam doesn’t necessarily reflect any action on Mattis’s part. That said, at least in theory, directors are supposed to do something, and serving as window dressing for a massive fraud is the kind of thing that normally reflects poorly on a person’s reputation.

What’s more, as Paul Szoldra writes at Task and Purpose, pre-retirement Mattis genuinely seems to have been actively involved in trying to help Theranos bypass the regulatory process:

“I would very much appreciate your help in getting this information corrected with the regulatory agencies,” Holmes wrote in an email to Mattis, also obtained by the Post. “Since this misinformation came from within DoD, it will be invaluable if this information is formally corrected by the right people in DoD.”

The general then forwarded the email chain on and asked, “how do we overcome this new obstacle?”

“I have tried to get this device tested in theater asap, legally and ethically,” Mattis wrote. “This appears to be relatively straight-forward yet we’re a year into this and not yet deployed.”

Yet even with the SEC now throwing the book at the company, nobody in Congress is interested in asking Mattis what, exactly, he knew about Theranos and when. And the worst thing about it is their inclination to treat him with kid gloves makes a lot of sense.​
A LOT of companies with boards have boards that don’t have the slightest clue about operations and operational feasibility. They understand strategy and cash flows, in no particular order.
 
I don’t follow. If he truly thought it was a revolutionary technology and was trying to get the military to buy in, why would that be a conflict of interest?
Because he stood to personally profit as a member of the board?
 
A LOT of companies with boards have boards that don’t have the slightest clue about operations and operational feasibility. They understand strategy and cash flows, in no particular order.
Which of those did Mattis understand? What particular competence area did Mattis bring to the board?
 
A LOT of companies with boards have boards that don’t have the slightest clue about operations and operational feasibility. They understand strategy and cash flows, in no particular order.
And a lot of times, there are a few board members who are nothing more than window dressing, and honestly don't have the first clue what's going on with the company.

I see no reason to believe Mattis did anything shady here until there is some actual suggestion that there is evidence of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scott S
And a lot of times, there are a few board members who are nothing more than window dressing, and honestly don't have the first clue what's going on with the company.

I see no reason to believe Mattis did anything shady here until there is some actual suggestion that there is evidence of that.
This is exactly right. Many people are board members simply so company A can claim X and Y are board members.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scott S
A LOT of companies with boards have boards that don’t have the slightest clue about operations and operational feasibility. They understand strategy and cash flows, in no particular order.

More so in start-ups where you have disruptive or cutting-edge technologies -- by definition, how many people would understand it to start with, never mind the board members.
They are there to bring in more investors or open up markets ie access to a financial or commercial network -- and only understand the product/service at a 90,000ft level.
 
Last edited:
Can you not envision a scenario where a board member, who communicates with the company quarterly at most, would have no idea that the company was founded on a lie?
Sure, I can envision such a scenario. Can you envision a scenario in which a board member turns a blind eye to fraud? Theranos is a strike against Mattis I didn't know about. A guy who misses massive fraud...it happens. A guy who signs on to the Trump administration after that? Well that properly puts things in a different light. Wouldn't you say?
 
Sure, I can envision such a scenario. Can you envision a scenario in which a board member turns a blind eye to fraud? Theranos is a strike against Mattis I didn't know about. A guy who misses massive fraud...it happens. A guy who signs on to the Trump administration after that? Well that properly puts things in a different light. Wouldn't you say?
Yes I can but my scenario is much more likely. The board of the company I work for has zero clue what’s going on past macro-budgeting and strategy. Actual operations are completely foreign to them. I think, after working in a few big corps, that my example is more common.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scott S
Yes I can but my scenario is much more likely. The board of the company I work for has zero clue what’s going on past macro-budgeting and strategy. Actual operations are completely foreign to them. I think, after working in a few big corps, that my example is more common.
I don't think you are updating properly. If someone is only associated with one fraud the probability they are corrupt is small because far more people are inept than corrupt. But if someone is associated with two frauds the probability they are corrupt goes way up. Theranos is one fraud...Trump is the next.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
Ehhh. You’re reaching.
Why am I reaching? You weren't making some actual point about Mattis you were talking about your experience with board members. I read it as something like: most board members are inept rather than corrupt. Even though fraudulent companies are much more likely to have corrupt board members if we account for the fact that most board members aren't corrupt then we shouldn't read too much into Mattis' connection with Theranos. I read you as, essentially, warning us against the base-rate fallacy. I thought this is a good point. One false positive is very likely.
My point is that two false positives are much less likely.
 
Why am I reaching? You weren't making some actual point about Mattis you were talking about your experience with board members. I read it as something like: most board members are inept rather than corrupt. Even though fraudulent companies are much more likely to have corrupt board members if we account for the fact that most board members aren't corrupt then we shouldn't read too much into Mattis' connection with Theranos. I read you as, essentially, warning us against the base-rate fallacy. I thought this is a good point. One false positive is very likely.
My point is that two false positives are much less likely.
Working in the Trump administration doesn’t make him corrupt. It’s a ridiculous notion. Mattis is a superb SecDef so far. He’d be superb if HRC had made him her SecDef - and you wouldn’t be advancing this very poorly supported theory.

Rather than attacking him with “guilt by association,” you should be happy we have an exceptionally competent and capable person in the job.
 
Working in the Trump administration doesn’t make him corrupt. It’s a ridiculous notion. Mattis is a superb SecDef so far. He’d be superb if HRC had made him her SecDef - and you wouldn’t be advancing this very poorly supported theory.

Rather than attacking him with “guilt by association,” you should be happy we have an exceptionally competent and capable person in the job.
Being hired by one fraudster is weak evidence you are corrupt. Being hired by two increases the odds of corruption significantly. The point of the article is that so many are "happy to have an exceptionally competent and capable person" as SecDef that nobody is paying attention to the warning signs that Mattis might be corrupt. The vast pool of corruption that is Donald Trump and his administration has red lights and alarms sounding all over. What I learn from the article is that there is an amber light blinking over Mattis too.
 
Being hired by one fraudster is weak evidence you are corrupt. Being hired by two increases the odds of corruption significantly. The point of the article is that so many are "happy to have an exceptionally competent and capable person" as SecDef that nobody is paying attention to the warning signs that Mattis might be corrupt. The vast pool of corruption that is Donald Trump and his administration has red lights and alarms sounding all over. What I learn from the article is that there is an amber light blinking over Mattis too.
The light only exists in your mind.
 
The light only exists in your mind.
Indeed it does. An analog of my amber light should exist in your mind too if you are prudent. We have this tendency, particularly with military types, to ignore warning signs in our desire for heroes. David Petraeus comes to mind as an example of this. Perhaps Flynn is another example. We would be wise to pay more attention to warning signs, not less.
 
Being hired by one fraudster is weak evidence you are corrupt. Being hired by two increases the odds of corruption significantly. The point of the article is that so many are "happy to have an exceptionally competent and capable person" as SecDef that nobody is paying attention to the warning signs that Mattis might be corrupt. The vast pool of corruption that is Donald Trump and his administration has red lights and alarms sounding all over. What I learn from the article is that there is an amber light blinking over Mattis too.

I think Mattis signed on because he enjoys power and wants to serve the country. I don't see a correlation between the two. However, his conduct wrt Theranos deserves investigation. As Im sure youre aware, expecting military to be objective about their own superiors/colleagues is a tough cause.

I've found Mattis behavior to be dubious in other ways, specifically his conduct with Saudi officials.
 
Working in the Trump administration doesn’t make him corrupt. It’s a ridiculous notion. Mattis is a superb SecDef so far. He’d be superb if HRC had made him her SecDef - and you wouldn’t be advancing this very poorly supported theory.

Rather than attacking him with “guilt by association,” you should be happy we have an exceptionally competent and capable person in the job.

Please do tell. What specifically is so superb about Mattis in comparison to other Sec Def?
 
Indeed it does. An analog of my amber light should exist in your mind too if you are prudent. We have this tendency, particularly with military types, to ignore warning signs in our desire for heroes. David Petraeus comes to mind as an example of this. Perhaps Flynn is another example. We would be wise to pay more attention to warning signs, not less.
No. That also exists in your mind. Never liked Flynn any more than I like Trump. Petraeus was a genuinely superb officer that made a stupid mistake. You’re letting your dislike of Trump cloud your judgment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1
Please do tell. What specifically is so superb about Mattis in comparison to other Sec Def?
He gets it. He understands the importance of Security Cooperation and building the capacity of our friends and allies is a force multiplier that decrease the chances of us having to come to their defense and also for them to work with us when needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1
No. That also exists in your mind. Never liked Flynn any more than I like Trump. Petraeus was a genuinely superb officer that made a stupid mistake. You’re letting your dislike of Trump cloud your judgment.
I don't think you properly understand our disagreement. I think we disagree because I believe that Trump (contra good leadership) prefers to hire people who are corrupt. Given that fact, If Trump chooses to hire somebody and they take the job that is the moral analog of them testing positive for a relatively rare bad condition. You don't.

Question. You are considering two candidates for a senior executive job. The two have identical resumes. The only difference is that one of the candidates was hired by Trump and worked closely with him for several years. Does that raise or lower your assessment of the candidate?
 
He gets it. He understands the importance of Security Cooperation and building the capacity of our friends and allies is a force multiplier that decrease the chances of us having to come to their defense and also for them to work with us when needed.

And how does that differ from other Sec Def? What you've written reads like platitudes.
 
I don't think you properly understand our disagreement. I think we disagree because I believe that Trump (contra good leadership) prefers to hire people who are corrupt. Given that fact, If Trump chooses to hire somebody and they take the job that is the moral analog of them testing positive for a relatively rare bad condition. You don't.

Question. You are considering two candidates for a senior executive job. The two have identical resumes. The only difference is that one of the candidates was hired by Trump and worked closely with him for several years. Does that raise or lower your assessment of the candidate?
That's a division fallacy. Just because Trump tends to appoint people who are corrupt (granting that assumption for the sake of argument), that doesn't mean you can conclude that any particular individual is corrupt.

No one has still provided any evidence, or even any accusation of the existence of evidence, that Mattis has done anything untoward. The man's career suggests he deserves the benefit of the doubt until such time as someone produces said evidence.
 
That's a division fallacy. Just because Trump tends to appoint people who are corrupt (granting that assumption for the sake of argument), that doesn't mean you can conclude that any particular individual is corrupt.

No one has still provided any evidence, or even any accusation of the existence of evidence, that Mattis has done anything untoward. The man's career suggests he deserves the benefit of the doubt until such time as someone produces said evidence.
Accuracy is good and Bayes Rule is tricky.
T=Event someone is appointed by Trump
C=Event someone is corrupt
P(C)=Probability someone is corrupt
P(~C)=1-P(C)=Probability someone not corrupt
P(T|C)=Probability appointed by Trump given corrupt
P(T|~C)=Probability appointed by Trump given not corrupt
P(C|T)=Probability corrupt given appointed by Trump
By Bayes Rule
P(C|T)=(P(T|C)P(C)/(P(T|C)P(C)+P(T|~C)P(~C)).
P(C|T)>P(C) iff P(T|C)>P(T|~C)
QED

Strictly speaking, I believe that someone is more likely to be appointed by Trump if they are corrupt than if they are not corrupt. That is a strong claim and you may not agree. If you grant that claim, then you put a higher probability on someone being corrupt after being appointed by Trump than before.

The fact that Mattis has a stellar reputation is important information. If all we had was being appointed by Trump then Mattis' stellar reputation would greatly ease our concerns. But, then if Mattis' reputation is not as stellar as we had understood that information becomes much more important in light of the appointment by Trump. None of this rises to red alert...rather an amber alert sounds right to me.
 
Last edited:
Accuracy is good and Bayes Rule is tricky.
T=Event someone is appointed by Trump
C=Event someone is corrupt
P(C)=Probability someone is corrupt
P(~C)=1-P(C)=Probability someone not corrupt
P(T|C)=Probability appointed by Trump given corrupt
P(T|~C)=Probability appointed by Trump given not corrupt
P(C|T)=Probability corrupt given appointed by Trump
By Bayes Rule
P(C|T)=(P(T|C)P(C)/(P(T|C)P(C)+P(T|~C)P(~C)).
P(C|T)>P(C) iff P(T|C)>P(T|~C)
QED

Strictly speaking, I believe that someone is more likely to be appointed by Trump if they are corrupt than if they are not corrupt. That is a strong claim and you may not agree. If you grant that claim, then you put a higher probability on someone being corrupt after being appointed by Trump than before.

The fact that Mattis has a stellar reputation is important information. If all we had was being appointed by Trump then Mattis' stellar reputation would greatly ease our concerns. But, then if Mattis' reputation is not as stellar as we had understood that information becomes much more important in light of the appointment by Trump. None of this rises to red alert...rather an amber alert sounds right to me.
This is why mathematicians and logicians don't like each other.

Even if I grant you all your assumptions, your proof doesn't mean much if P(C) itself is an extremely low number. That's why you have to be careful about drawing logical deductions about specific individuals based on probabilities across a population. Put simply, unless P(C|T) = 1, then at least some of Trump's appointees are not corrupt. Ranger and I both think that evidence strongly suggests Mattis is one of those guys, so we aren't willing to go into attack mode unless genuine contrary evidence arises.

In other words, your math can be both technically correct and practically meaningless at the same time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iu_a_att
It seems nobody associated with Trump is clean. [whispers] But we shouldn't talk about Mattis[/whispers]
https://www.vox.com/2018/3/16/17124288/mattis-theranos-board-trump
But by the time Mattis was selected to serve as Trump’s secretary of defense in January 2017, the basic scope of the fraud was already well-known to the public thanks to diligent journalistic work. So was the fact that Mattis was not only earning $150,000 a year for his service on the Theranos board but was also involved in pro-Theranos advocacy while on active military duty.

He duly resigned from Theranos on January 5, 2017 — by which time the company was already commonly described as “embroiled in scandal” by press reports — but, remarkably, the whole affair didn’t come up at his confirmation hearings.

It’s not exactly rare for members of a corporate board of directors to serve as window dressing with no actual involvement in or knowledge of a company’s operations, so the mere fact that the whole company was a giant scam doesn’t necessarily reflect any action on Mattis’s part. That said, at least in theory, directors are supposed to do something, and serving as window dressing for a massive fraud is the kind of thing that normally reflects poorly on a person’s reputation.

What’s more, as Paul Szoldra writes at Task and Purpose, pre-retirement Mattis genuinely seems to have been actively involved in trying to help Theranos bypass the regulatory process:

“I would very much appreciate your help in getting this information corrected with the regulatory agencies,” Holmes wrote in an email to Mattis, also obtained by the Post. “Since this misinformation came from within DoD, it will be invaluable if this information is formally corrected by the right people in DoD.”

The general then forwarded the email chain on and asked, “how do we overcome this new obstacle?”

“I have tried to get this device tested in theater asap, legally and ethically,” Mattis wrote. “This appears to be relatively straight-forward yet we’re a year into this and not yet deployed.”

Yet even with the SEC now throwing the book at the company, nobody in Congress is interested in asking Mattis what, exactly, he knew about Theranos and when. And the worst thing about it is their inclination to treat him with kid gloves makes a lot of sense.​

"Mattis’ worth also includes a significant amount of money he earned during his 44-year military career, such as his pension, and earnings from various other corporate boards and consulting and speaking fees since he retired from the Marine Corps in 2013".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"corporate boards, consulting, speaking fees"

the big 3 in money laundering.

he needs some no interest loans, an amazing real estate deal, and a book deal, for a well rounded portfolio though.
 
Last edited:
"Mattis’ worth also includes a significant amount of money he earned during his 44-year military career, such as his pension, and earnings from various other corporate boards and consulting and speaking fees since he retired from the Marine Corps in 2013".

"corporate boards, consulting, speaking fees"

the big 3.
As long as anybody besides a Clinton gets paid for speaking fees, s’ok with the guys who swear they don’t watch Fox News.
 
Accuracy is good and Bayes Rule is tricky.
T=Event someone is appointed by Trump
C=Event someone is corrupt
P(C)=Probability someone is corrupt
P(~C)=1-P(C)=Probability someone not corrupt
P(T|C)=Probability appointed by Trump given corrupt
P(T|~C)=Probability appointed by Trump given not corrupt
P(C|T)=Probability corrupt given appointed by Trump
By Bayes Rule
P(C|T)=(P(T|C)P(C)/(P(T|C)P(C)+P(T|~C)P(~C)).
P(C|T)>P(C) iff P(T|C)>P(T|~C)
QED

Strictly speaking, I believe that someone is more likely to be appointed by Trump if they are corrupt than if they are not corrupt. That is a strong claim and you may not agree. If you grant that claim, then you put a higher probability on someone being corrupt after being appointed by Trump than before.

The fact that Mattis has a stellar reputation is important information. If all we had was being appointed by Trump then Mattis' stellar reputation would greatly ease our concerns. But, then if Mattis' reputation is not as stellar as we had understood that information becomes much more important in light of the appointment by Trump. None of this rises to red alert...rather an amber alert sounds right to me.
That’s too many words, so I’ll try this pretty much in the reverse order of your analysis.

Someone appointed by Trump is more likely to be corrupt than someone appointed by someone else because Trump does not try to screen out corrupt appointees as strenuously as others do.

(I don’t think Trump personally cares if people think he or his associates are corrupt in the first place and he apparently never installed a process that would screen out corruption as a matter of course without his involvement.)
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT