13 Bombshells in 'You Can See Everything' Doc

You can see everything. This is the. movie that is [music] taking the nation. by storm and I will tell you for good. reason. I saw it. I'm going to tell you. right now, it raises some very important. warnings about intent, [music]. credibility, control, trust, all in. connection with Elizabeth Holmes, the. convicted [music] fraudster of Theranos. We are breaking down Nathan Fielder's. new film to ask [music] the question, who's telling the truth? Welcome to. Sidebar, presented by Law & Crime. I'm. Jesse Weber.

>> [music]. >> So, I've seen You Can See Everything, the film currently in theaters that. everyone, everyone is talking about. Directed by both Lance Oppenheim, Nathan. Fielder. Fielder also stars in the film. And it's all centered on Elizabeth. Holmes. And I'm going to say a phrase. that I'm sure you've already seen a lot. of people who have seen this movie say, "I'm still processing what I just saw.". I am. I'm still thinking about it. I'm. still trying to understand it. I'm still.

processing what I just experienced. Truly for me, it was one of the most. incredible films, let alone. documentaries I've seen in the last. several years. And honestly, I've never seen what I just saw. I don't. say that lightly. Now, what we're going. to do here on Sidebar is a little. different than what we usually do. And. to be clear, this is going to be full of. spoilers. Full of spoilers, okay? Fair. warning, if you haven't seen it yet, you. know, don't watch this, okay? I am going. to spoil the big moments in this film.

Now, what I want to do is I want to look. at this documentary from a legal lens, because what Holmes says and does in. this movie, I feel very much mirrors, or maybe I. should say relates to what she was. accused of doing and what she was. convicted of, okay? So, here's the. thing. This may be the closest that. we're actually going to see to her. testifying. She faced a federal criminal. trial. There were no cameras. There were. no recording devices. We never saw or. heard for ourselves how she said the. things that she said, right? What she.

testified to. And that's the theme of. this movie, the way that I saw it when I. watched this. Criminal intent, credibility, did she. really knowingly, intentionally defraud. investors of hundreds of millions of. dollars, or. did she really believe what she was. selling? Did she not intentionally lie? Was she manipulated, or was she the one. doing the manipulating? And it's questions like those that drive. this entire movie. So, let me explain.

what I mean. I'm going to get into. specific examples. So, in case you don't. know, just a backstory here because it. puts it all into context. Elizabeth. Holmes was the founder, CEO, chairman of. the blood testing company Theranos. And. according to prosecutors, while she. claimed for years that she had this. functioning technology, these products. that could run any blood test all. through just a finger stick, you know, rather than from a traditional vein. draw, it didn't work. And they say she. knew it didn't work and defrauded. investors. The question surrounding this.

really came to a head in 2015 when there. was this Wall Street Journal expose. Then the SEC filed charges in 2018, and. a grand jury indicted her on criminal. charges. Now, the government alleged. that Holmes knew that this blood testing. analyzer didn't work, that she ended up. secretly using conventional machines to. get the results, but led investors and. the public to believe that Theranos was. using its own product, was using its. analyzer. And they say she fraudulently. induced dozens of investors to invest.

hundreds of millions of dollars. And. just to give you an idea of who Holmes. was and what she was accused of, okay? This is what the Department of Justice. posted on their website. Quote, "She. used direct communications, marketing. materials, statements to the media, financial statements, models, and other. information to reach potential investors. and induce investments. Holmes. consistently provided glowing but false. representations to investors and. potential investors about the analyzer's. progress and capabilities. She falsely. represented to investors that multiple.

major pharmaceutical companies had. comprehensively evaluated Theranos and. had validated its technology, and she. provided investors with reports bearing. logos from pharmaceutical companies. falsely suggesting the pharmaceutical. companies endorsed Theranos. Holmes. misrepresented to investors that. Theranos had a profitable. revenue-generating business relationship. with the US Department of Defense and. that the Theranos technology had been. deployed to the battlefield to treat. wounded soldiers. In truth, Holmes knew. the technology was never deployed in the. battlefield and that Theranos had.

acquired little revenue from military. contracts for trial runs of the. analyzer. Trial evidence demonstrated. that Holmes also misrepresented the dire. financial status of Theranos to. investors and its prospects for future. earnings. By the end of 2014, her stock. in Theranos was valued at more than $4. billion. She enjoyed a lavish life carrying out. her fraudulent scheme, living in a $15. million mansion, and traveling in a. Theranos-paid private jet. She gained a. national profile adorning the cover of. Fortune, Forbes, Inc., Glamour, and the.

New York Times Style Magazine. Holmes. dined at the White House, joined the. Board of Fellows of Harvard Medical. School, and was named by Time as one of. the 100 most influential people in the. world. But as the government describes, her scheme not only deprived investors. of vast sums of money, it also placed. numerous others at risk of great. physical harm. Wanting to paint Theranos. as a legitimate enterprise, Holmes. offered Theranos blood tests to the. public, and Theranos' flawed technology. was used on patients with serious. medical conditions. As a result,

Theranos sent out inaccurate results to. patients being screened for cancer, to. women monitoring their pregnancies, and. to one victim who was led to believe she. had the precursor virus to AIDS, among. other examples. Okay. As I said, she was. indicted. Holmes went to trial. She was. convicted after a 4-month trial in. federal court of conspiracy to commit. fraud on investors and three counts of. committing fraud on individual investors. which involved wire transfers totaling. more than $140 million. And she was acquitted of other charges. including those related to fraud on.

individual patients. That's important, it comes up in the movie. And she was. sentenced to 11 years in prison although. I'll tell you a little bit about what we. can expect when she might get released. I'll tell you that a little bit later. on. But it brings us to this film, okay? Now, to be clear, before the first. trailer launch, before this was even. announced, we had no idea. We had no. idea, the public, that Nathan Fielder. and his crew were documenting the life. of Elizabeth Holmes. To be clear, Holmes. hadn't spoken to the media before this.

filming since 2016. So, this is a big. deal. And this film is split into two. parts. So, first, you see in Nathan. Fielder, who's a comedian, he's a. documentarian, he's a filmmaker, actor, you see him and his crew filming and. documenting Holmes, her fiance Billy. Evans, and their kids living together in. this Del Mar, San Diego rental home out. in California 34 days before she. surrenders herself to prison, FPC Bryan. out in Texas. And at one point, Fielder.

even moves in with them, okay? That's. only part of the film. The second half. of the film picks up about two years. later when Holmes is in prison and you. look at what Billy Evans is up to. And. the circumstances by which how this film. even came about plays a central role in. this documentary. It only comes up later. on in the documentary and I'm going to. get into it cuz it goes into the theme. of can you believe Elizabeth Holmes? Now, in a press packet that I received. for the film, Nathan Fielder said in an.

interview about this documentary, about. this film, quote, "One thing that was. fun for me is that I couldn't let my. guard down. I was very present trying to. understand if I was being toyed with. When I watched the footage back, I see. myself genuinely conflicted and. struggling to make sense of these. moments and what was happening. And that. was what was remarkable about watching. this. Look, Nathan Fielder's a comedian, he puts himself in these kind of awkward. situations. You don't know if it's a. stick or not. But like, I'm watching. this and I'm looking at his reaction to. Elizabeth Holmes and Billy Evans and.

even I'm looking at him saying, I I think he's like genuinely confused. as to what he's hearing and what he's. trying to make sense of. So, I'll give. you an example. In the movie, and. remember, this is all about what she was. accused of, right? Like, defrauding. investors, lying to people. In the movie, she claims she never lied. Like, she never knowingly misrepresented. something or didn't tell the truth about. something. She even tells Fielder, "I've. always tried to say what I believe.".

Now, that is a shocking thing to really. believe. I mean, come on. She never. lied. He presses her on it. And then she. couches it more in the film about, "Oh, her criminal case, those allegations.". But then you couple that. with this fascinating scene where. Fielder is shown the blood testing. device, right? The thing at issue. And. Fielder actually says to Holmes, and. it's really funny, "So, this is the. famous scam device." And he claims he. was just referring to how people see it. But it was actually really funny, the. whole theater laughed when he said that.

So, Holmes and Evans, they take out this. device, the blood testing device, out of. their garage. They show it to Fielder. And in the documentary, Fielder asks. Holmes, "So, this works?" And in the. film, she stands by the technology, despite everything. And Fielder makes the point, well, if. this technology works, if this product. works, you wouldn't be in trouble, right? Right? The whole charges are. based on the premise that this. technology, this product didn't work and. you made people believe it. But this is. key. In the film, Fielder and Holmes get.

into a back and forth about whether the. device actually currently works or. whether she made it seem like it. theoretically could work. And this is. because of a statement that she had made. in the past. Quote, "The device can run. any test.". Is that a lie? Does she see it that way? Because she seems to suggest, well, once. the chemistry and the process was in. place, it would work. But is that what you mean by can?

You see the issue, right? Is she saying. it can work? Because how is she saying. it can work if the process and the. chemistry aren't in place? And that's about the meaning of words. and can. And from a legal point of view, that was key to what she told investors. And after that exchange, this is when. Fielder does an experiment. He does an. experiment with Holmes to see just how. her mind works. And he plays her the. famous Abbott and Costello routine, right? Who's on first?

Holmes, in the film, after watching. that, she doesn't get it. She doesn't get the joke. She doesn't know the name of the person. who's on first. She doesn't get it. Who? Doesn't click. And this is when Billy Evans jumps in. and says, "Look, that's just how. her mind works. It's different." But it. goes to this larger point about not only. how words matter, but how people. perceive what you say. And perhaps her mind doesn't work like.

others. Or maybe she's just not being. honest. But it does raise the question, did she have criminal intent to defraud, or did she believe that she was telling. the truth? And she didn't get it. She. didn't know how her words would be. perceived. The counterargument would be, wait a second, you'd have to believe. that she was delusional as to the status. of her technology and company and was. completely left out of the loop and. didn't understand what was being. presented. I mean, that could be a hard. pill to swallow. Now, here's the thing. She apparently believes.

in this venture so much, and even claims. that she believes this is her purpose in. life, is that you find out in the film. that she and Evans are starting a new. healthcare startup business. They. basically reference it as Theranos 2.0. And when you watch that, I'm thinking, she was just convicted of all these. crimes related to this kind of industry. and sentenced to 11 years in prison. Why. go back to this? Why take the risk? I've. never seen that before.

Unless she really doesn't believe she. did anything wrong or is going to act. differently and say things differently. and be more careful with what she said. last time. But Holmes says in the film, quote, "From wherever I am, I'm going to. continue to work inventing, even if it's. inventing from a cage.". So, makes you wonder, does she really believe she did nothing. wrong? I mean, she claims in the film. she didn't do anything wrong. She. doesn't know how she's in this current. position. She says, "I wish I knew.". Criminal intent. Did she knowingly.

deceive? Did she knowingly conspire? That's a criminal agreement with others, right? Does she not remember what she. said to people? She was apparently miked. up during filming for 12 hours or. longer, letting Fielder document it all. You know where the title of this film. came from? You learn that she sent him a. text saying, "You can see everything.". He even asks her, "Are you worried about. me seeing something that might make you.

look bad? I mean, why are you agreeing. to this?". And that becomes a question throughout. Why would she agree to any of this? Wouldn't a guilty person, who at the. time of filming is working on her. current appeals, not want to be asked. questions, not say something that could. jeopardize her legal case, not say. something that could be used against. her? And yes, it's our understanding. that the mics are cut when she was on. the phone with her lawyer. There were. certain things she couldn't talk about. because of her appeals, but still, I'll. say there was one moment even when you. can hear bits and pieces of a. conversation with Holmes on the phone.

seemingly asking what her life in prison. is going to be like. The schedule, the environment, so forth. She starts to cry. Actually, you hear. arguments in the film from her and Evans. as to her legal case. They seem to. reference arguments that mirror the. arguments that her attorney is making in. her appeal. So, for example, in the. appeal again, I think you kind of hear. this in the film, they reference it, I. believe, where Theranos' lab director. testified at her trial. They make the. argument in the appeal that this was.

improper. That. he was improperly testifying as an. expert regarding how the blood testing. machines didn't work. And she made other. arguments in her appeal, too, like how. she didn't intend to deceive investors. By the way, our understanding is her. appeal has reportedly been denied by the. courts in the past. But the counter. argument is, and Fielder addresses this. with Holmes right in the beginning, so why is she agreeing to this. documentary? Is she agreeing to this. documentary for strategic purposes? He.

says that an insecurity of his, or. concern, is that she may feel because. Nathan Fielder is just a comedian that. he might not be educated in the science, and she may be picked him to craft a. positive narrative about her in a way. that he really can't challenge. But he. says straight up that he really. researched her, read all about her, read. about her case, says in his view, there. is a ton of evidence to support the. charges. So, he lets her know that. He. can't be toyed with. But here's the. point. Midway through the movie, you.

start to say, or at least I did, is there more to this than meets the. eye? And that's when you get to this. idea, wait a second, Elizabeth Holmes, an apparent victim of rape, is she being manipulated by men? Let's not forget what her defense was at. trial. Holmes took the stand and said. she was abused by her business partner, co-defendant, lover, Ramesh Sunny. Balwani, the number two at Theranos. He, by the way, is serving time in prison. This is a man almost 20 years older than.

her. She claimed that he exerted control. over her, influence over her, including. saying she needed to be more like a man, that he allegedly verbally berated her, and that all this alleged abuse affected. her rational decision-making. She had. said on the stand, quote, "He had taught. me everything I thought I knew about. business, and he was the best business. person that I knew. I didn't question. him in the way that I otherwise would. have." And that was referenced in the. movie, too, her relationship with him. And you look at that and you say, "Really? Really? No." Doesn't make.

sense. After all, she was convicted. Jury didn't believe it, right? But wait a second. We didn't see her. testify. Yeah, we saw reporting on what. she said, but we didn't see it. We. didn't hear it for ourselves. And then I. watched this movie, and something. happens in this movie. You see this. relationship between Holmes and Billy. Evans. And assuming they aren't putting. on an act, and more on that in a little. bit, there appears to be a theme suggesting. he's taking advantage of her or. manipulating her. This is from how they first even met, how they got together. This is, you. know, he met her after her company.

started to fall apart, after the exposé, shortly before she was indicted, to what. is going to be known as the infamous egg. scene. So, at one point in the film, Elizabeth Holmes is like whisking eggs. in the kitchen, and he just comes over and grabs the. bowl and starts doing it in a more rapid. motion. It's very, very small, but Fielder. clocks it and asks why he did it. And. while Evans suggests that he's helping. her, the way it can be perceived by. audiences, at least that was hearing in.

my theater, is like, is that a way of him exerting. control over her? And that gets amplified to when Holmes. is in prison, and you find out from. Billy Evans himself that he has power of. attorney, that he's operating her X. account, that he's making posts that are. arguably not what Holmes would say even. though he claimed 80% of the posts are. from her. And that he's even using an AI likeness. recreation of Elizabeth Holmes in all. different ways. And at one point Evan.

says how quote, "I can literally do. anything as Elizabeth Holmes.". And there becomes a part where Fielder. even confronts Evans about all this and. even talks to Holmes in prison. face-to-face to see if she knows about. what Evans is doing and is it okay with. all this. And there's even a part of the movie. when Evans cuts off a conversation. between Nathan Fielder and Elizabeth. Holmes' dad. It's kind of tense. And. I'll tell you, there is a very tense. moment where Fielder is interviewing a.

guy in 2025 who's in business with Evans. and this guy in this interview starts to. talk about where Theranos went wrong and. Evans jumps in and cuts off the. interview. Fielder was not happy. Tense back and. forth. And then later on Evans even says. he always carries a gun, that he wants. revenge on people. So what you're seeing. this idea is uh-oh, who's Elizabeth. Holmes involved with? And I mean Nathan. Fielder even asks skeptical questions. about. why would he want originally get.

involved with Elizabeth Holmes and stay. with Holmes after all of this exposé, after all this is going on and after she. was formally charged. So while Fielder asks Evans, "Wait, were. you concerned that maybe she was. manipulating you because your family has. money?". Then you wonder, is he the one exerting. control over Holmes? Does he have an. agenda? That idea of how much is. Elizabeth Holmes aware of or. participating in all of this? That is.

key to the film. And this culminates, this was a big spoiler, okay? Nobody had. any idea this was happening. We didn't. know she was a part of the film. This. culminates in the arrival of actress. Amanda Seyfried. Okay? This is the. person who portrayed Elizabeth Holmes in. the Hulu series, The Dropout. She is not. making a cameo in this. This is a big. twist. She is effectively a co-star in. this documentary. And she kind of plays. like a side investigator to Nathan. Fielder. And at times, when certain.

moments between Nathan Fielder and. Elizabeth Holmes weren't recorded, they. weren't filmed, it's Amanda Seyfried who. actually fills in and acts as Elizabeth. Holmes. So, she's reprising her role in. these recreated scenes with Nathan. Fielder. It's so meta. And again, to be. clear, it's all based on Nathan. Fielder's recollection of those events. But it is so meta watching this. I mean, it's one thing to see Amanda Seyfried. watch footage of Elizabeth Holmes. watching Amanda Seyfried play her in The.

Dropout. Okay, that was a scene. But for. her to play the role of Elizabeth Holmes. again. in these real-life scenes. is something else. But as soon as she. gets introduced, and I'll say it, Amanda. Seyfried kind of like asked the. questions that we're all thinking, you. start to wonder, wait, is Elizabeth. Holmes fooling all of us? What do I. mean? So, there's a scene in the movie where. Nathan Fielder's explaining to Amanda. Seyfried that before filming of the doc. ever took place, there was a meeting.

between him, Lance Oppenheim, these. executives from A24, and Holmes and. Evans. And as he's explaining this to. Amanda Seyfried, it's overlaid over a. recreation of that meeting where Amanda. Seyfried plays Holmes and actor. Christopher Abbott plays the role of. Billy Evans. And at this meeting, again, this is Nathan Fielder's recollection of. what this meeting was. At this meeting, they start talking about the documentary.

to be filmed. And at one point, according to Fielder, Holmes leaves to. go upstairs to check on one of her kids. while Evans stays behind. Evans then. allegedly negotiates what they're going. to be paid for the documentary. Now, that raises, of course, and this is. talked about, all kinds of ethical. issues, conflict of interest concerns. Subjects of documentaries aren't usually. paid for their roles in a documentary. But Fielder explains to Seyfried they. had no choice but to agree to pay him. because he had all the leverage. So,

they agree. Now, the reason this is such a big deal. is because Nathan Fielder then plays. Amanda Seyfried footage of a. conversation he had with Elizabeth. Holmes during his time with her. Where she says, out of nowhere, that she's not receiving any kind of. compensation or financial benefit for. being part of the documentary, for being. part of the film. And you couple that with Holmes saying. in the film, money's not important to. her. It's even repeated how she never. sold any of her shares.

So, two narratives here, right? Both. played out kind of comical versions in. the film. One is either Billy Evans. kept all of this from her, kept her in. the dark, didn't tell her about the. money. And in the film he says he didn't tell. her. Or, she and Evans devised this. scheme where she deliberately goes. upstairs so she she keeps her hands. clean. She's not part of the. conversation. She's none the wiser. Meaning, she's secretly a part of.

everything and devised this to get them. paid. And Nathan Fielder says, meaning. she might be the most manipulative. person that's ever lived. She might be. that deceitful. Or, is she someone too. trusting and can be kept out of the. loop? Is that what happened with Sunny? And where Fielder seemingly confronts. Elizabeth Holmes about this, what did. she know? This is during a recreated. prison scene with him and Amanda. Seyfried playing the role of Holmes. And. Holmes, according to Fielder, kind of.

gives a wishy-washy answer about what. she really knew and how she's not really. involved with that, how she's not really. privy to all the details. It wasn't, according to Fielder, her reaction. What? What are you talking about? We're. getting paid? What did Billy do? What? No, it wasn't that, according to. Fielder. And then she claims, according. to Nathan Fielder, "Look, Nathan, if. it's really important to you that we. don't take the money, I'll talk to Billy. about it. I'll talk to Billy Evans about. it." And this is eerily reminiscent of. an earlier scene in the film when Amanda. Seyfried is visiting Billy Evans' house.

Kids are there. This was shocking cuz. you see the two of them together. And by. the way, it gets very tense later on. during a dinner scene. But Holmes is on. the phone from prison. And she and Amanda Seyfried, again, the. person who impersonated her, who played. her in The Dropout, they're on the phone. together. And it is a very short and. very awkward conversation on the phone. And to be clear, that's seemingly like. the first time they ever spoke since. Amanda Seyfried portrayed her. And when Seyfried asks, "Did you know I.

was going to be here?". Holmes replies along the lines, "I don't. know if I knew." So, not a yes, not a. no. It's strange. It's arguably calculated. Now, should be noted that Evans ended up. relinquishing financial compensation for. the film without giving a reason why, but it goes to this idea, right? Is this. a sample. of the real Elizabeth Holmes? Is she. calculating? Is she strategic? Are she. and Evans in on this together, assuming.

this is what really happened? And it is suggested that maybe Evans and. Holmes are the same. Maybe they're just. totally in love, that there's no. manipulation or anything like that. Maybe there's nothing untoward going on. here at all. I mean, Fielder even says, when examining Holmes, he didn't sense. duress or fear, but just genuine love. between the two of them. And it brings us to the end of the film, because at the end of the film Amanda. Seyfried asks Nathan Fielder whether or.

not he deliberately isn't recounting a. moment of deception that he observed. from Elizabeth Holmes when he visited. her in prison in order to protect her. because he cares about her. Because during the film. he sees her cry. You see her with her kids before she. goes to prison. There's one I'll just. tell you heartbreaking scene where. it's about the last milk that she's. going to give her child before she's. sent away. And Fielder does live with them. He hugs.

her, gives her a hilarious card and gift. by the way before she goes to prison. It's a card that says goodbye and good. luck. And there's a gift of a disguise. and hair dye she wanted to make an. escape. But when Amanda Seyfried asks Fielder. if he's hiding something about Holmes. that's overlaid with a scene of he and. Holmes swimming in the ocean and having. fun. And that's key because he indicated. earlier in the film that he doesn't. really like cold water, but maybe he.

would make an exception to her. And you. wonder on whether this was done. deliberately by the filmmakers. is Nathan Fielder hiding something about. Holmes. to protect her? Has he been manipulated by her charm and. deceit like the investors? That's perhaps the opinion of those who. believe everything you're seeing in this. documentary isn't real. That she's trying to craft a narrative, that she's being deceitful. Is he a victim?

Is that what this whole film explores? How Holmes can get you to her side? And. as Amanda Seyfried says at the end of. the film about this whole Elizabeth. Holmes situation, quote it's very. complicated. Yeah. It really, really is. And we're left to wonder how much does. Elizabeth Holmes know? Is she telling. the truth? Who's telling the truth? And. we, the public jury, are probably all mixed in conclusions, ambiguous. I mean, Fielder said at a.

screening in Telluride, "I. really am struggling to this day to. understand exactly what I experienced in. this. I don't quite know what I went. through." And I, and I have to imagine a. lot of people who see this film maybe. feel the same way. Now, as far as. Elizabeth Holmes, it's been reported. that she's scheduled to be placed in. this Austin Transitional Center out in. Texas on August 23rd, 2027, so this. halfway house. And her sentence had. actually been reduced by the court to 10.

years and 3 months, so she's now. scheduled to be released on February. 22nd, 2030. But look, that's my take. watching [music] this film. I'm curious. if you watched it what you think. Put it. out in the comments. I'm so curious. [music] to read it. It's all we have for. you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining. us. I'm Jesse [music] Weber. Speak to. you next time.