Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes Seeks Commutation Of Fraud Sentence

Authored by Kimberley Hayek via The Epoch Times,

Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, who was convicted of conspiring to defraud investors in her now-defunct blood-testing startup, has asked President Donald Trump to commute her prison sentence, potentially cutting nearly six years off her time behind bars.

Holmes was convicted in 2022 of four counts of wire fraud and conspiracy and sentenced to just over 11 years in prison.

Prosecutors said Holmes lied to investors from 2010 to 2015 by promising that Theranos’s technology could run many medical tests on one blood drop from a finger prick.

A federal appeals court upheld her sentencing last year, citing sufficient evidence of intent to defraud.

Holmes, now 41, sought to commute her sentence in 2025, and it remains pending, according to the Department of Justice’s Office of the Pardon Attorney. She is scheduled to be released from a minimum-security federal prison camp in Bryan, Texas, in December 2031.

A commutation would reduce her sentence but leave intact her conviction and $452 million restitution obligation to defrauded investors.

A full pardon, which Holmes has not publicly requested, would eliminate those requirements.

The Epoch Times reached out to the White House and the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney for comment, but did not receive a response by publication time.

Holmes was 19 when she founded Theranos in Palo Alto, California.

With 50 percent ownership in Theranos and a net worth of $4.5 billion at the time, she was listed as the “world’s youngest self-made woman billionaire” by Forbes in 2014.

Theranos became the subject of several investigations by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) after a 2015 report by The Wall Street Journal questioned the reliability of Theranos’s test results.

The flawed technology led a patient to falsely believe she had a precursor virus to AIDs, and sent inaccurate results to pregnant women and women being screened for cancer, according to the Department of Justice.

“Theranos itself eventually concluded a patient impact existed for every test run on patients and voided all tests with its analyzer,” the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California said in 2022.

“The government points out that Holmes was undeterred and again choose deceit over candor by downplaying the extent of the patient impact to investor-victims and continuing forward with her elaborate fraud.”

Holmes leveraged a high-powered Theranos board that included former Defense Secretary James Mattis, who testified against her during her trial, and two former secretaries of state, Henry Kissinger and the late George Shultz, whose son, Alexander, submitted a statement criticizing Holmes for concocting the scheme.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/22/2026 - 13:40

Bank Of America, Citigroup May Launch Credit Cards With 10% Rate

Once again Trump's brash negotiating style appears to be paying off. 

Two weeks after Trump shocked the world by demanding lenders cap credit card interest rates at 10% for one year, Bank of America and Citigroup are exploring options to do just that in an attempt to placate the president. 

Bloomberg reports that both banks are mulling offering cards with a 10% rate cap as one potential solution. 

Earlier this week, Trump said he would ask Congress to implement the proposal, giving the financial firms more clarity about what exact path he’s pursuing. Bank executives have repeatedly decried the uniform cap, saying it’ll cause lenders to have to pull credit lines for consumers. 

The alternative proposal is to offer credit cards that would have a 10% rate specifically targeted to those consumers... who would already be eligible for the lowest rates around. And while it would do nothing to alleviate the near record high APRs for most Americans, it would let Trump declare that he managed to get the banks to yield - even if it was only a nominal success.

As Bloomberg notes, some executives have publicly said they agree with Trump’s focus on affordability, and the latest options they’re mulling are one way to potentially work with the administration in its effort to lower costs for consumers.

Many issuers including Bank of America and Citigroup already offer introductory rates for consumers as low as 0% for a period of time.

On Thursday, Bank of America Chief Executive Officer Brian Moynihan said a 10% cap would slow consumer spending, but noted that the bank has been talking to the administration about it.

“We’re working hard,” Moynihan said Thursday on a Bloomberg TV interview. “We’re trying to come up with solutions.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/22/2026 - 13:20

Democrats Join Republicans In Voting The Clintons In Contempt Of Congress

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Yesterday, a curious thing happened in a House Committee.

Bill and Hillary Clinton were actually held accountable for flouting the law — at least as a preliminary matter. In the House Oversight Committee, Democrats joined Republicans in approving contempt resolutions against the two political figures after they refused to appear to answer questions about their connections to Jeffrey Epstein.

The House panel voted 34-8 to advance the resolution on Bill Clinton to a floor vote. It voted 28-15 to advance a resolution on Hillary Clinton.

As previously discussed, the Clintons adopted a position that was devoid of any cognizable legal defense. It was simple hubris, telling Congress that they did not want to appear to be saying that congressional subpoenas are discretionary for them.

From the Whitewater case to the Lewinsky matter to the email scandal, the Clintons have always escaped accountability for their actions. Courts can find perjury and prosecutors can find classified material without a criminal charge. Evidence can suddenly surface after investigations, or thousands of emails can be destroyed without any repercussions.

After that history, it is little surprise that the Clintons would believe that they, unlike other Americans, can choose whether to comply with a subpoena. After standing in flagrant contempt, the Clintons only reaffirmed the sense of entitlement by offering to allow an interview in New York without a transcript. There would be no “what the meaning of ‘is’ is” moments.

It is a demonstration of our partisan times that the mere fact that Democrats joined in the motion came as a surprise to many. Nine Democrats voted with their GOP colleagues against the Clintons

What is disgraceful are those Democrats who dispensed with any institutional or ethical obligations in opposing the resolution.

Here were the eight Democrats who voted to allow the Clintons to disregard lawfully issued subpoenas from the Committee:

• Wesley Bell (D., Mo.)

• Shontel Brown (D., Oh)

• Robert Garcia (D., Cal.)

• Ro Khanna (D., Cal.)

• Kweisi Mfume (D., Md.)

• Eleanor Holmes Norton (D., D.C.)

• Suhas Subramanyam (D., Va.)

• James Walkinsaw (D., Va.)

Then there are the two Democrats who voted “present” rather than take responsibility by making an actual decision: Reps. David Min (D., Cal.) and Yassamin Ansari (D., Wash.).

That is the “profile of courage” for some members: voting that “I’m here” without taking a position on open contempt for the Committee.

Figures like Ro Khanna have long portrayed themselves as more moderate voices, but appear to be yielding to the far left, including his recent support for the disastrous wealth tax in California.

Now he is effectively saying that congressional subpoenas simply do not apply to the Clintons like they would every other American.

The three Democrats who voted to advance the resolution against Hillary Clinton are Lee, Stansbury and Tlaib, according to Politico.

Two Democrats voted “present” for the Bill Clinton contempt resolution: California Rep. David Min and Washington Rep. Yassamin Ansari, while just Min voted “present” on the Hillary Clinton resolution.

This vote was the true test of courage for House members. There has to be something that is not entirely dispensable in the face of political advantage.

Even if you disagree with the need for a subpoena, members should be able to support the authority of their colleagues to demand that everyone, even the Clintons, respect such subpoenas.

For a party that runs on fighting the privileged and entitled wealthy class, this vote is comically ironic. They are supporting the claim of the Clintons that they get to decide when they will be subject to legal demands without offering any even remotely plausible legal defenses.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/22/2026 - 13:00

Trump Sues JPMorgan And CEO Jamie Dimon For $5 Billion Over Alleged 'Political' Debanking

President Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase and its CEO Jamie Dimon, claiming the banking giant debanked him for political reasons. 

The lawsuit was filed Thursday morning in a Miami state court by his attorney, Alejandro Brito, on behalf of Trump and several of his hospitality companies. 

The complaint cites JPMorgan's code of conduct, which reads: "We set high expectations and hold ourselves accountable. We do the right thing—not necessarily the easy or expedient thing. We abide by the letter and spirit of the laws and regulations everywhere we do business and have zero tolerance for unethical behavior."

According to Brito, "Despite claiming to hold these principles dear, JPMC violated them by unilaterally—and without warning or remedy—terminating several of Plaintiff’s bank accounts."

Trump and his companies have "transacted hundreds of millions of dollars" through the bank, the lawsuit reads, adding that Feb. 19, 2021 was the day that "forever altered the dynamic of the parties’ relationship," when the bank allegedly "without warning or provocation," notified Trump and his companies that several of their bank accounts or were beneficiaries of, "would be closed just two months later, on April 19, 2021."

"JPMC did not provide plaintiffs with any recourse, remedy, or alternative—its decision was final and unequivocal," reads the suit. 

JPMorgan Responds

In a statement following the filing of the suit, the bank blamed "rules and regulatory expectations."

"We do close accounts because they create legal or regulatory risk for the company," adding "We regret having to do so but often rules and regulatory expectations lead us to do so. We have been asking both this Administration and prior administrations to change the rules and regulations that put us in this position, and we support the Administration’s efforts to prevent the weaponization of the banking sector."

According to Trump's attorney, his team is "confident that JPMC’s unilateral decision came about as a result of political and social motivations, and JPMC’s unsubstantiated, ‘woke’ beliefs that it needed to distance itself from President Trump and his conservative political views."

"In essence, JPMC debunked plaintiff’s accounts because it believed that the political tide at the moment favored doing so," reads the complaint. "In addition to the considerable financial and reputational harm that Plaintiffs and their affiliated entities suffered, JPMC’s reckless decision is leading a growing trend by financial institutions in the United States of America to cut off a consumer’s access to banking services if their political views contradict with those of the financial institution."

Trump’s attorney alleged that, "JPMC’s conduct, in violation of its code of conduct and Dimon’s lofty assertions, is a key indicator of a systemic, subversive industry practice that aims to coerce the public to shift and re-align their political views."

The lawsuit goes on to allege that JPMorgan Chase and Dimon have "unlawfully and unjustifiably published some or all of their names, including the names of President Trump, the Trump Organization with its affiliated entities, and the Trump family, on a blacklist." -Fox News

According to the lawsuit, the JPMorgan blacklist is accessible by federally regulated banks and is comprised of individuals and entities that are not to be served. 

"Given that Plaintiffs have always complied with all applicable banking rules and regulations and their wealth management accounts were in good standing, JPMC’s publication of President Trump, the other Plaintiffs, the Trump Organization and its affiliated entities, and/or the Trump family’s names on this blacklist, is an intentional and malicious falsehood," reads the lawsuit, which claims that the bank engaged in "an unfair and deceptive trade practice" by directing the publication of the names to the list, noting that the bank "had no legitimate basis to do so and knew that doing so would induce, and did in fact induce, other banking institutions not to deal with them."

Trump Announcement

Over the weekend, Trump quashed a WSJ article claiming that he offered JPM's Jamie Dimon the job of Fed Chairman, which he said was "totally untrue, there was never such an offer and, in fact, I'll be suing JPMorgan Chase over the next two weeks for incorrectly and inappropriately DEBANKING me after the January 6th Protest..." 

In response, a JPMorgan spokeswoman, Trish Wexler, told media outlets that the bank does not "close accounts because of political beliefs."

As the Epoch Times noted over the weekend, in August 2025, Trump issued an executive order to ensure that banks cannot refuse services to individuals based on their political or religious beliefs, a practice known as “debanking.” A watchdog in December found that nine large U.S. banks actively engaged in the practice between 2020 and 2025.

“To date, the [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] has observed that between 2020 and 2023, the banks maintained public and nonpublic policies restricting certain industry sectors’ access to banking services,” the report reads. “Many industry sectors were restricted based primarily on how it might appear to the public if the bank provided access to financial services to these sectors.”

Advocates against debanking have cited cases of Christians and conservatives who have stated that they have been victims of the practice by major financial institutions, including claims from the Indigenous Advance Ministries, former Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), and Trump himself, among many others. First Lady Melania Trump, in her memoir “Melania,” wrote that she, too, was denied banking services.

“I was shocked and dismayed to learn that my long-time bank decided to terminate my account and deny my son the opportunity to open a new one,” she wrote in her book.

When issuing the order over the summer, the White House said banks could face fines, consent decrees, or other punitive actions if they continue to remove financial access for certain individuals.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/22/2026 - 12:40