[ineedasername]

I think you can change "has" to "had the current" in that comment and it still makes a reasonable point.

I was in a job once where there was a snafu with a relative of a local politician. It didn't take a call from the politician for the CEO to issue an all-hands with a mandate to find out what the heck happened.

[selestify]

Did the politician actually ever check in with the company about whatever happened?

[ineedasername]

Nope: that much I remember. It was over a decade ago & I was only peripherally involved so the details are hazy, but IIRC it was pretty much just the name-drop by the nephew (I think it was a nephew) that got the ball rolling, and we took the initiative from there. I'm pretty sure we reached out to the politician's office to "clear things up".

[leroy_masochist]

I don't think it is a reasonable point to claim without evidence that, as sitting SecDef, Mattis worked behind the scenes to get charges filed against Holmes in order to protect his reputation.

[ineedasername]

I did not make that claim. I speculated that government connections & influence by some of the board members may have played a part in how aggressively prosecution was pursued.

Can I ask a question though? It seems we simply disagree here on what is reasonable speculation on the issue, and that's okay, but can I ask why you are focused on Mattis in this? He strikes me as a man of some integrity, and so I highly doubt he would have done anything inappropriate here. Though that very integrity might make him want to get to the bottom of things and therefore make inquiries about how seriously the issue was being handled by the DOJ-- again not in any inappropriate way. Out of the group of directors, I'd think him the least likely to have used his influence to pressure anyone. And there's a big difference between using influence and using pressure.

Also in my other comments I mention that it may even only have been passive influence: Having people of that high of a profile attached to a scandal can be enough to have folks at the DOJ and regional prosecutor's office take notice to see what's going on. In which case, to my original point, Holmes' high-profile board of directors worked against her when it came to criminal prosecution.

Further, I admit 1) I should have been clearer in my original comment that such passive influence may have been the factor and 2) I was speculating, not making accusations of inappropriate activity. I thought that was clear, but I suppose I'm wrong.

Maybe we should simply part ways on this thread in disagreement now, rather than continue what doesn't seem a productive conversation on this topic with each other.

[leroy_masochist]

It's perfectly plausible that someone at some point may have told the US Attorney, "Holmes should be charged, look at what she did to Jim Mattis", but it's not as if that needed to happen in order for charges to be filed against Holmes. The case against her was quite compelling and I find it highly implausible that pro-Mattis sentiment within the DoJ would have been a factor in the Holmes indictment going ahead.

The high-profile nature of the case was absolutely a factor in how the DoJ handled it -- I'm sure the media attention got it more AUSA hours, etc.