You're saying that Mattis, Cohen, etc had the ability to influence decisions within Trump's DoJ and exerted that ability in order to ensure that charges were filed against Holmes in 2018? If so, why do you think this?
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.
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.
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.
But I also don't think it's unrealistic or unreasonable to speculate that people who were on the board of directors due to their connections and influence could have used that same influence when things went sour.
Is it not clear that I'm speculating? And is speculating that people with government connections might use them in this situation? After all, that's part of why they were on the board in the first place. Did they actually use that influence? I don't know. But I think it's a reasonable bit of speculation. Influential people using their influence when they're publicly embarrassed shouldn't require much of an imagination.
I'm not sure that Trump's presidency is relevant here. The influence these people have would be with others in the government, not Trump.
Not sure why you'd think it's "a reasonable bit of speculation" to baselessly posit that Mattis decided to obstruct justice by reaching out to a regional prosecutor in order to influence the government's decision to prosecute a criminal case.
It's also not obstruction of justice to ask the DOJ to look into an issue. If a threat was involved in that request then sure-- that's obstruction.
I try not to make nonsensical conjectures in public forums, if that is the question you're asking.
Let's part ways on this topic though: You seem to be verging close to personal attacks, and so we've passed the point of useful discussion.