28 ms·

Joseph Nacchio

297 points by teawithcarl 13y ago

jsonne 13y ago
Very misleading. The article says he's in prison for insider trading.
- tlrobinson 13y ago
  The article also says he was "appealing his conviction on the basis that the U.S. government retaliated against Qwest for his refusal to give customer data to the National Security Agency."
- adamnemecek 13y ago
  It's more complex than that.
  - money2burn 13y ago
    That man cost thousands of people their life savings. That's why he went to prison. Had nothing to do with NSA
tptacek 13y ago
It's a short indictment. Nacchio was convicted along with several other Qwest execs. http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2007/0307/20070307_030947_nacchio_indictment.pdf http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2007/0307... Obviously, the indictment has nothing to do with wiretaps, and concerns itself instead with the millions of dollars Nacchio made selling his stock while demonstrably in possession of material nonpublic information. But of course, it's hard disprove a negative, so the idea that this conviction alone among hundreds of similar convictions across corporate America at the time is in fact retaliation... well, it'll never die.
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  You should know better than to consider an indictment as a reliable source of information. They're like rejected Hollywood movie scripts. They have every incentive to demonize the target and paint everything in the worst light possible, so it's not surprising that this is exactly what they do.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    A jury found him guilty of 19 counts.
- rdl 13y ago
  Did the national security stuff get accentuated by his defense to try to complicate things?
nkohari 13y ago
...for insider trading. What ridiculous link bait.
- i_am_dead 13y ago
  This is how it works. The prosecutors identify a person they want to target and then they work out what charges they can bring against them. Not the other way around.
- leephillips 13y ago
  Link bait for Wikipedia? I don't get it.
peterjancelis 13y ago
Context: https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-June/008815.html https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-J... The article argues the 'insider trading' charge was related to the gag order.
- ccarter84 13y ago
  On timeline: "After he consulted with Legal, he refused. As a result, NSA canceled a bunch of unrelated billion dollar contracts that QWest was the top bidder for. And then the DoJ targeted him and prosecuted him and put him in prison for insider trading " If that's a legit summary, the retaliatory removal of contracts his company was in-line for --- doesn't seem very far stretched.
shiftpgdn 13y ago
To all the people claiming this was solely as a result of insider trading: Have you ever dealt with the government in any capacity? Especially any of the 3 letter agencies? They will lean on you and they will absolutely try to ruin your life because you inconvenienced them. Did you know lying to an FBI agent is a federal offense[1]? Did you know it's status quo to try to trick people they're interviewing into presenting a lie or obscuring the facts? They do this so they can present you with the option of either A. Doing everything they demand or B. Become a felon and face time in prison with rapists and murderers. I can absolutely guarantee Nacchio went to prison over not helping the NSA. [1]http://www.fbi.gov/stlouis/press-releases/2010/sl101210.htm http://www.fbi.gov/stlouis/press-releases/2010/sl101210.htm
- untog 13y ago
  I can absolutely guarantee Nacchio went to prison over not helping the NSA. (A nitpick but) no, you can't. Everyone getting carried away with hyperbole is rarely useful in situations like these. It is definitely an issue worth investigating, but you can't guarantee the outcome before such an investigation.
- sneak 13y ago
  > Did you know lying to an FBI agent is a federal offense[1]? Holy fuck that's terrifying. I had no idea. Time for a re-watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
  - JamisonM 13y ago
    I do not understand why it is terrifying. In the case cited the person was being interviewed and knew the people he was talking to were FBI agents. It seems like misleading the police at any level should be a crime, should it not? If you are not sure about something you can say you are not sure or take the 5th, right?
    - jrs235 13y ago
      Except, what about the double standard that the police can lie to you?
ccarter84 13y ago
It's amazing how often government seems to act like a vengeful ex.
zainny 13y ago
Some context, taken from the other story currently on the front page [1]: "We know what happened in the case of QWest before 9/11. They contacted the CEO/Chairman asking to wiretap all the customers. After he consulted with Legal, he refused. As a result, NSA canceled a bunch of unrelated billion dollar contracts that QWest was the top bidder for. And then the DoJ targeted him and prosecuted him and put him in prison for insider trading -- on the theory that he knew of anticipated income from secret programs that QWest was planning for the government, while the public didn't because it was classified and he couldn't legally tell them, and then he bought or sold QWest stock knowing those things. This CEO's name is Joseph P. Nacchio and TODAY he's still serving a trumped-up 6-year federal prison sentence today for quietly refusing an NSA demand to massively wiretap his customers." [1] https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-June/008815.html https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-J...
- money2burn 13y ago
  Your an idiot, he cost thousands of people their life savings. That's why he went to prison. I hope he never gets out. Know you facts before you post this garbage.
blhack 13y ago
If you read the entire article, this seems to be the timeline: 1) He is tried for insider trading, and convicted. 2) He appeals this because the trial excluded a key witness that supported his innocence . 3) He WINS this appeal, and is granted another trial. 4) He is tried again, this time not in front of a jury. The circuit court of appeals, where this is tried (stressing: without a jury this time) convicts him 5-4. This isn't nearly as clear cut as some of the people in this thread are making it, and it does arouse some suspicion.
- tptacek 13y ago
  There is no such thing as a jury trial in front of an appeals court; appeals court outcomes include overturned convictions, upheld convictions, and new trials in front of district courts. This timeline does not make sense.
  - blhack 13y ago
    But it wasn't remanded back to a district court, they retried in front of the 10th circuit court. Regardless, he was never rightfully convicted by a jury. The trial in which he was found guilty by a jury was found to have denied him a proper defense (by an appeals court).
    - tptacek 13y ago
      It doesn't look like he was retried. The 10th Circuit is an appeals court. They overturned his conviction, evaluated some new evidence, then reinstated the conviction.
- _delirium 13y ago
  I don't think #4 is correct; that wasn't a trial, but a review of the appellate decision. The timeline as I read it is this: 1. He is tried (in district court, with a jury) for insider trading, and convicted. 2. He appeals to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. 3. A 3-judge panel of the 10th Circuit holds that the exclusion of a witness prejudiced his trial, and sets aside his conviction, ordering a new trial. 4. The prosecution appeals that holding to the en banc 10th Circuit. 5. The full 9-judge 10th Circuit re-hears the appeal, and sets aside the panel's decision (by a narrow 5-4 vote), reinstating the original conviction. 6. He petitions the Supreme Court to hear the case and overturn the en banc 10th Circuit's decision, arguing that the panel's decision overturning the conviction had been correct. 7. The Supreme Court declines to hear the case, which ends the series of appeals and leaves the original conviction in place.
jnbiche 13y ago
It's really strange to read the pro-government people here and elsewhere claim on one hand that Snowden was incredibly naive to be surprised that the CIA railroaded foreign bankers into informing by manipulating the legal system, and then turn around and claim that any talk of the NSA "arranging" Nacchio's sentencing is some kind of conspiracy theory. The logical discord is hard to understand. I'm not convinced Nacchio was railroaded (I don't know enough about it yet), but it's definitely the modus operandi of powerhouse intelligence services around the world. So it's entirely possible Nacchio was set up, or at the least, that the some member of the US intelligence community was behind the prosecution.
downandout 13y ago
At least he is now in a halfway house and is due for release in September. Given that few in the US care about their rights, I guess that people who stand up for them should be grateful when they don't get locked up permanently. http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22918125/former-qwest-ceo-joe-nacchio-moved-halfway-house http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22918125/former-qw...
jongraehl 13y ago
Neither of the two sides here (CEO, usgov) can fairly expect the benefit of the doubt. I welcome any expert legal analysis of his alleged crimes, but otherwise can't be bothered except to say there's a good chance his claims of retaliation are true. Let's keep in mind that congresspeople legally commit insider trading all the time, and surely many of their DC friends and allies do so illegally, but without punishment. Or, let's remember how successful former public servants are at earning a big salary on the basis of their connections+access (at best) or as reward for their corruption (at worst).

Joseph Nacchio

297 points by teawithcarl 13y ago

jsonne 13y ago

Very misleading. The article says he's in prison for insider trading.

tlrobinson 13y ago
The article also says he was "appealing his conviction on the basis that the U.S. government retaliated against Qwest for his refusal to give customer data to the National Security Agency."
adamnemecek 13y ago
It's more complex than that.
- money2burn 13y ago
  That man cost thousands of people their life savings. That's why he went to prison. Had nothing to do with NSA

tptacek 13y ago

It's a short indictment. Nacchio was convicted along with several other Qwest execs. http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2007/0307/20070307_030947_nacchio_indictment.pdf http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2007/0307... Obviously, the indictment has nothing to do with wiretaps, and concerns itself instead with the millions of dollars Nacchio made selling his stock while demonstrably in possession of material nonpublic information. But of course, it's hard disprove a negative, so the idea that this conviction alone among hundreds of similar convictions across corporate America at the time is in fact retaliation... well, it'll never die.

lawnchair_larry 13y ago
You should know better than to consider an indictment as a reliable source of information. They're like rejected Hollywood movie scripts. They have every incentive to demonize the target and paint everything in the worst light possible, so it's not surprising that this is exactly what they do.
- tptacek 13y ago
  A jury found him guilty of 19 counts.
rdl 13y ago
Did the national security stuff get accentuated by his defense to try to complicate things?

nkohari 13y ago

...for insider trading. What ridiculous link bait.

i_am_dead 13y ago
This is how it works. The prosecutors identify a person they want to target and then they work out what charges they can bring against them. Not the other way around.
leephillips 13y ago
Link bait for Wikipedia? I don't get it.

peterjancelis 13y ago

Context: https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-June/008815.html https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-J... The article argues the 'insider trading' charge was related to the gag order.

ccarter84 13y ago
On timeline: "After he consulted with Legal, he refused. As a result, NSA canceled a bunch of unrelated billion dollar contracts that QWest was the top bidder for. And then the DoJ targeted him and prosecuted him and put him in prison for insider trading " If that's a legit summary, the retaliatory removal of contracts his company was in-line for --- doesn't seem very far stretched.

shiftpgdn 13y ago

To all the people claiming this was solely as a result of insider trading: Have you ever dealt with the government in any capacity? Especially any of the 3 letter agencies? They will lean on you and they will absolutely try to ruin your life because you inconvenienced them. Did you know lying to an FBI agent is a federal offense[1]? Did you know it's status quo to try to trick people they're interviewing into presenting a lie or obscuring the facts? They do this so they can present you with the option of either A. Doing everything they demand or B. Become a felon and face time in prison with rapists and murderers. I can absolutely guarantee Nacchio went to prison over not helping the NSA. [1]http://www.fbi.gov/stlouis/press-releases/2010/sl101210.htm http://www.fbi.gov/stlouis/press-releases/2010/sl101210.htm

untog 13y ago
I can absolutely guarantee Nacchio went to prison over not helping the NSA. (A nitpick but) no, you can't. Everyone getting carried away with hyperbole is rarely useful in situations like these. It is definitely an issue worth investigating, but you can't guarantee the outcome before such an investigation.
sneak 13y ago
> Did you know lying to an FBI agent is a federal offense[1]? Holy fuck that's terrifying. I had no idea. Time for a re-watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
- JamisonM 13y ago
  I do not understand why it is terrifying. In the case cited the person was being interviewed and knew the people he was talking to were FBI agents. It seems like misleading the police at any level should be a crime, should it not? If you are not sure about something you can say you are not sure or take the 5th, right?
  - jrs235 13y ago
    Except, what about the double standard that the police can lie to you?

ccarter84 13y ago

It's amazing how often government seems to act like a vengeful ex.

zainny 13y ago

Some context, taken from the other story currently on the front page [1]: "We know what happened in the case of QWest before 9/11. They contacted the CEO/Chairman asking to wiretap all the customers. After he consulted with Legal, he refused. As a result, NSA canceled a bunch of unrelated billion dollar contracts that QWest was the top bidder for. And then the DoJ targeted him and prosecuted him and put him in prison for insider trading -- on the theory that he knew of anticipated income from secret programs that QWest was planning for the government, while the public didn't because it was classified and he couldn't legally tell them, and then he bought or sold QWest stock knowing those things. This CEO's name is Joseph P. Nacchio and TODAY he's still serving a trumped-up 6-year federal prison sentence today for quietly refusing an NSA demand to massively wiretap his customers." [1] https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-June/008815.html https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-J...

money2burn 13y ago
Your an idiot, he cost thousands of people their life savings. That's why he went to prison. I hope he never gets out. Know you facts before you post this garbage.

blhack 13y ago

If you read the entire article, this seems to be the timeline: 1) He is tried for insider trading, and convicted. 2) He appeals this because the trial excluded a key witness that supported his innocence . 3) He WINS this appeal, and is granted another trial. 4) He is tried again, this time not in front of a jury. The circuit court of appeals, where this is tried (stressing: without a jury this time) convicts him 5-4. This isn't nearly as clear cut as some of the people in this thread are making it, and it does arouse some suspicion.

tptacek 13y ago
There is no such thing as a jury trial in front of an appeals court; appeals court outcomes include overturned convictions, upheld convictions, and new trials in front of district courts. This timeline does not make sense.
- blhack 13y ago
  But it wasn't remanded back to a district court, they retried in front of the 10th circuit court. Regardless, he was never rightfully convicted by a jury. The trial in which he was found guilty by a jury was found to have denied him a proper defense (by an appeals court).
  - tptacek 13y ago
    It doesn't look like he was retried. The 10th Circuit is an appeals court. They overturned his conviction, evaluated some new evidence, then reinstated the conviction.
_delirium 13y ago
I don't think #4 is correct; that wasn't a trial, but a review of the appellate decision. The timeline as I read it is this: 1. He is tried (in district court, with a jury) for insider trading, and convicted. 2. He appeals to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. 3. A 3-judge panel of the 10th Circuit holds that the exclusion of a witness prejudiced his trial, and sets aside his conviction, ordering a new trial. 4. The prosecution appeals that holding to the en banc 10th Circuit. 5. The full 9-judge 10th Circuit re-hears the appeal, and sets aside the panel's decision (by a narrow 5-4 vote), reinstating the original conviction. 6. He petitions the Supreme Court to hear the case and overturn the en banc 10th Circuit's decision, arguing that the panel's decision overturning the conviction had been correct. 7. The Supreme Court declines to hear the case, which ends the series of appeals and leaves the original conviction in place.

jnbiche 13y ago

It's really strange to read the pro-government people here and elsewhere claim on one hand that Snowden was incredibly naive to be surprised that the CIA railroaded foreign bankers into informing by manipulating the legal system, and then turn around and claim that any talk of the NSA "arranging" Nacchio's sentencing is some kind of conspiracy theory. The logical discord is hard to understand. I'm not convinced Nacchio was railroaded (I don't know enough about it yet), but it's definitely the modus operandi of powerhouse intelligence services around the world. So it's entirely possible Nacchio was set up, or at the least, that the some member of the US intelligence community was behind the prosecution.

downandout 13y ago

At least he is now in a halfway house and is due for release in September. Given that few in the US care about their rights, I guess that people who stand up for them should be grateful when they don't get locked up permanently. http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22918125/former-qwest-ceo-joe-nacchio-moved-halfway-house http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22918125/former-qw...

jongraehl 13y ago

Neither of the two sides here (CEO, usgov) can fairly expect the benefit of the doubt. I welcome any expert legal analysis of his alleged crimes, but otherwise can't be bothered except to say there's a good chance his claims of retaliation are true. Let's keep in mind that congresspeople legally commit insider trading all the time, and surely many of their DC friends and allies do so illegally, but without punishment. Or, let's remember how successful former public servants are at earning a big salary on the basis of their connections+access (at best) or as reward for their corruption (at worst).