3 ms·

I'm not so convinced Nacchio is an innocent victim. And I also find it rich that a former telecom CEO guilty of numerous financial crimes is being held up as an

by kyllo 13y ago

I'm not so convinced Nacchio is an innocent victim. And I also find it rich that a former telecom CEO guilty of numerous financial crimes is being held up as an example of targeted political persecution using frivolous laws. Insider trading is not the type of crime you commit unknowingly. Has anyone even refuted his guilt convincingly? That is a serious crime and also one with a clear paper trail. If he did it, there would have been no need to frame him for defying the NSA; the SEC would have got him soon enough anyway.

moron4hire 13y ago
Insider trading is only a crime when people want to find you guilty of a crime. That's why congresscritters are not prosecutable for insider trading. Insider trading is the entire point of trading, you wouldn't make any money if everyone had the same information.
- kyllo 13y ago
  Perhaps those with the right type of political power/influence are able to shield their trading activity from SEC scrutiny. But trying to use this guy as an example of the "You commit three felonies a day" argument? Really? Do we all commit three felonies a day unknowingly? Maybe. But the suggestion that tens of millions of dollars in insider trading falls into that category, is flat-out demented.
  - moron4hire 13y ago
    No, you're missing the point. It's not about obscuring anything from SEC scrutiny. The SEC sees everything that is going on. You don't even have to have used insider knowledge to be tagged with insider trading; the SEC says that it's enough to have had access to insider information to be guilty of insider trading. It does nothing about it because it would render Wall Street moot. Insider trading is so vaguely defined and broadly applied that it is a rule meant to be broken so they have something to blackmail you over when they decide they want to shove you around over something else.
- mpyne 13y ago
  You would possibly make money if people had the same information but came to different conclusions about the resultant effect of that information.
darkarmani 13y ago
It was only considered insider trading because the gov't cancelled all of the contracts in retribution and then claimed that he sold knowing they would cancel the contracts and tank the stock. Can't they make this claim of any company that they do business with? Wait to an insider makes a sale, and then cancel their gov't contracts and arrest for insider trading.

by kyllo 13y ago

moron4hire 13y ago

Insider trading is only a crime when people want to find you guilty of a crime. That's why congresscritters are not prosecutable for insider trading. Insider trading is the entire point of trading, you wouldn't make any money if everyone had the same information.

kyllo 13y ago
Perhaps those with the right type of political power/influence are able to shield their trading activity from SEC scrutiny. But trying to use this guy as an example of the "You commit three felonies a day" argument? Really? Do we all commit three felonies a day unknowingly? Maybe. But the suggestion that tens of millions of dollars in insider trading falls into that category, is flat-out demented.
- moron4hire 13y ago
  No, you're missing the point. It's not about obscuring anything from SEC scrutiny. The SEC sees everything that is going on. You don't even have to have used insider knowledge to be tagged with insider trading; the SEC says that it's enough to have had access to insider information to be guilty of insider trading. It does nothing about it because it would render Wall Street moot. Insider trading is so vaguely defined and broadly applied that it is a rule meant to be broken so they have something to blackmail you over when they decide they want to shove you around over something else.
mpyne 13y ago
You would possibly make money if people had the same information but came to different conclusions about the resultant effect of that information.

darkarmani 13y ago

It was only considered insider trading because the gov't cancelled all of the contracts in retribution and then claimed that he sold knowing they would cancel the contracts and tank the stock. Can't they make this claim of any company that they do business with? Wait to an insider makes a sale, and then cancel their gov't contracts and arrest for insider trading.