By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Elizabeth Holmes, the former Theranos CEO convicted of defrauding investors, has requested an early release from prison through a petition filed with the Department of Justice. Holmes is currently serving an 11-year sentence, set to end in December 2031, following her 2022 conviction and 2023 prison entry. This request follows a US appeals court upholding her convictions and the $452 million in restitution owed to victims, stemming from the collapse of Theranos, a company once valued at $9 billion. The final decision on the request rests with the president, who has previously granted clemency to other high-profile figures.
Read the original article here
Elizabeth Holmes asks Trump to let her out of prison early, and the immediate thought that springs to mind is, well, it’s not exactly surprising, is it? Given the context of the world we live in, and especially Trump’s track record, it feels almost inevitable. The general consensus here seems to be that if you’re looking for a pardon from Trump, the usual rules don’t apply, and it’s less about the legality and more about… other considerations. Let’s just say a certain transaction is likely required. The assumption is that it’s a financial transaction, and the size of the donation would, of course, be dependent on the “mood” of the individual in power.
Given this backdrop, it seems the unspoken question isn’t *if* she’s asking, but rather, *how much* she’s offering. The references to “the envelope full of cash” and the lack of surprise surrounding such an arrangement really drive home the perceived transactional nature of these decisions. It’s a sad state of affairs, but that’s what seems to be implied.
This all leads to the obvious question: Does she have the means? There is a certain cynicism at play here, and it suggests a belief that she’s well-versed in the language of such negotiations. Could she be, in this bizarre scenario, angling to potentially join some political cabal? It would fit right in with the current climate.
Then there is the matter of her public image. There’s a mention of the “ridiculous voice,” highlighting a perception that the entire persona was just a construct. The idea that she may be upstaging Trump is brought up. This idea adds another layer of complexity to the situation. He may not want to be outshined by another grifter. There’s also an implied assessment of her attractiveness, which seems relevant when dealing with this particular individual.
Furthermore, there is a consistent theme of “fraud recognizing fraud.” This sentiment seems to be the core of the discussion, emphasizing that someone in Trump’s position would be drawn to someone like Holmes, who is also known for fraud. It’s suggested that this common ground could work in her favor. The idea that she would be a perfect fit for a place in his circle, or cabinet, is mentioned.
The underlying premise is that a pardon is essentially a business negotiation. Early release should raise the restitution value to an even $500 million, and that she should have the ability to start repaying a significant portion upon release. There’s the suggestion of an “in-person interview” as well.
It appears the perception is that if the “currency” is exchanged, it’s a done deal. The idea of buying Trump cryptocurrency is also mentioned. It is all meant in jest, but it also reflects a distrust and disgust in the way the current political system works.
The situation is compared to a scene from Ghostbusters and Batman, to underscore the potential for complete and utter chaos. The overall feeling seems to be one of a world that is completely upside down.
So, where does this leave us? It feels like the chances are decent, perhaps even high, that she’d be let out. All that’s required is a financial incentive. But with all the caveats and cynicism, we’re left to wonder what the ultimate outcome will be. The underlying feeling is that the request itself is almost a foregone conclusion, but the specifics of the transaction will determine the outcome.