‘They’re really aggravating’

This is a rush transcript from “CNN Tonight,” September 20, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: Joining us now with reaction from inside the courtroom, our special correspondent Tom Foreman. And over on the red corner, we have Chip Ross of the E&E Legal news site.

Now, we’re learning about some inconsistencies in the statements that former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes gave to both the SEC and FBI. These inconsistencies are some of the things in Holmes’ own testimony were going to be explored during the trial. What do you make of this?

CARL WARD, MANTORES LEGAL GROUP: They’re really aggravating, Sean. As soon as I heard the inconsistencies in her own testimony, I immediately thought of the Clint Eastwood film. Let’s play it, then we’ll talk about it.

HANNITY: I don’t want to hear you out there or, I’ll do it if you like. I’d like to know. If you want to do it or not. But let me just read the statement. According to former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes, “as CEO of Theranos, I was never involved in writing or reviewing the written agreements with hospital clients,” but — between Theranos and these major hospital clients.

GEORGE CORKER, CNBC ANCHOR: So, in her initial testimony, she said no. Now, three times when questioned in the depositions, she was inconsistent. Did you get that feeling —

HANNITY: I didn’t. I figured I got that impression.

CORKER: Well, she — I don’t know that there was any mistaking she was untruthful in her statements.

HANNITY: Here’s the question, so then, according to her testimony, you have to have gone through the majority of the agreements before you made the statements. What did you think? What do you think about that?

CORKER: I don’t know. You know, Sean, I think — again, I don’t really know. I was asking somebody else. Let’s talk about it.

I mean, to me, the whole crux of the case is, “Did this company invent a technology that they had used to get to a manufacturing level to where they had a cost structure that allowed them to go and compete with companies that were really good in cancer diagnostics, in which they could actually get to a cure point?”

But, the other part of the testimony is pretty damning, and I don’t think that’s going to go away. I really think what’s going to happen when this is finished is that that testimony is going to be coming up in all the depositions. And then you’ll see really what Elizabeth Holmes’ position was in those very dark days at Theranos.

HANNITY: But does that mean she took down programs that saved lives, either with the hospital contracts or with the devices she introduced? Does she take credit for cancer tests that could save lives? Does she tout them to the world? Because I think this is — that’s what I was hoping to get at this time. What do you think?

FLOYD GRIMES, BANKNER COMPANY: Well, actually — I mean, the contracts they used, the hospital contracts, they were the legacy contracts that were for all the services they were performing through the hospital clients. Now, there was — she took issue with — because you have to contractually affirm in all cases that any patented property, any experimental technologies that came from experimental technologies that came from her lab or from someone else’s lab that were not part of their (UNINTELLIGIBLE) not part of their clinical services, and then they kind of go back and forth.

But it is not — it is not even accurate to say she authorized it.

HANNITY: That’s true.

GRIMES: There is a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) right — that’s a contractual covenant that was written that you had to attest in the contracts, and they all of the times she had gone to a contractual expert, like Frank to her, and he always concluded there was nothing here to certify. So, they had agreed to you certify your product —

HANNITY: Was it within the term of the contract?


CORKER: I don’t know what she’s asserting.

HANNITY: Not something that we would expect, Chip.

CORKER: But you also see that her — one thing that was absolutely consistent from the early testimony all the way through the depositions is

Leave a Comment