6 ms·

But wasn't he found guilty?

by eli 12y ago

dmix 12y ago
Presenting an indictment as fact is dangerous and highly questionable, whether or not the person got convicted. That doesn't mean the indictment is accurate, it is written at a point where it hasn't been scrutinized by the courts. They are pretty much always written as the very extreme position of what could have happened. They always present the offender as having clear intentions of breaking the law, when reality is much more complex. For example, they always throw in extra charges. In this case: > Nacchio was convicted in 2007 of 19 counts of insider trading and acquitted on 23 counts. [1] Prosecutors have to prove it's plausible the guy did it, they don't have an obligation to present an accurate or realistic scenarios in their original pre-trial arguments in order to win. Even the judgement by the courts can be inaccurate, this is why appeals courts are super important: > The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that the trial judge overstated the amount of Nacchio's alleged financial gain. [1] http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8226761 http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8226761
- eli 12y ago
  OK, fair enough. But, uh, he is guilty of insider trading right?
  - dmix 12y ago
    Yes he was on 19 counts. But to the OP's point he is also notable for this: > Joseph P. Nacchio was the only head of a communications company to demand a court order, or approval under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, in order to turn over communications records to the NSA. His conviction doesn't disprove he lost government contracts for fighting back against the NSA, only that he attempted to financially benefit from his unique knowledge of it. As even tptacek admits, it's a very plausible complaint. And one now effectively derailed.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      I do not think the complaint is plausible. I think that even if you stipulate that it is, the case is strong on its own merits. There's a difference between stipulating a point and conceding it.
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    That was the court's finding.
- tptacek 12y ago
  The overstated it by using the wrong metric: proceeds, not profits. The facts of the case, which demonstrate Nacchio selling out of his position in his own company based on private information unavailable to his common shareholders, remain (so far as I can see) unimpeached. Why are you defending this person?
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    Not GP, but: ⚫ Defendants are entitled to defense. You might even say it's in the name. ⚫ People are entitled to exploration and speculation of both history and legal issues. Legally guaranteed that right in some places. ⚫ Why are you so intent on prosecuting him? For that matter, I note a pretty pronounced pro-Spook bias in many of your posts. ⚫ The circumstances which lead to Qwest's precarious financial state were largely, some might say entirely, the result of the Government's actions against the company for failure to comply with NSL and other intelligence requests. ⚫ I see nothing even in the prosecution's case which establishes that the sale of stock 1) wasn't part of a longer-term asset sale, that 2) it wasn't part of a pre-planned asset divestiture plan. Quite common, there's been previous discussion on HN, I believe, on planned sales by Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer of Microsoft stock. ⚫ If some of the "material, non-public information" related to surveillance requests, Nacchio was pretty much in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. Specifically: he was culpable if he disclosed the reason for target undershoots, or if he didn't. The point remains that the document you've provided as definitive evidence is anything but.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      Do you understand what a stipulation is? Nacchio acknowledged the trades I posted from the indictment. Your argument seems to depend on recognizing a dispute where none exists.
      - dredmorbius 12y ago
        The trades having happened doesn't mean that the rest of the Government's case was relevant. Were there other trades outside this period?

But wasn't he found guilty?

by eli 12y ago

But wasn't he found guilty?

dmix 12y ago

Presenting an indictment as fact is dangerous and highly questionable, whether or not the person got convicted. That doesn't mean the indictment is accurate, it is written at a point where it hasn't been scrutinized by the courts. They are pretty much always written as the very extreme position of what could have happened. They always present the offender as having clear intentions of breaking the law, when reality is much more complex. For example, they always throw in extra charges. In this case: > Nacchio was convicted in 2007 of 19 counts of insider trading and acquitted on 23 counts. [1] Prosecutors have to prove it's plausible the guy did it, they don't have an obligation to present an accurate or realistic scenarios in their original pre-trial arguments in order to win. Even the judgement by the courts can be inaccurate, this is why appeals courts are super important: > The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that the trial judge overstated the amount of Nacchio's alleged financial gain. [1] http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8226761 http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8226761

eli 12y ago
OK, fair enough. But, uh, he is guilty of insider trading right?
- dmix 12y ago
  Yes he was on 19 counts. But to the OP's point he is also notable for this: > Joseph P. Nacchio was the only head of a communications company to demand a court order, or approval under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, in order to turn over communications records to the NSA. His conviction doesn't disprove he lost government contracts for fighting back against the NSA, only that he attempted to financially benefit from his unique knowledge of it. As even tptacek admits, it's a very plausible complaint. And one now effectively derailed.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    I do not think the complaint is plausible. I think that even if you stipulate that it is, the case is strong on its own merits. There's a difference between stipulating a point and conceding it.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  That was the court's finding.
tptacek 12y ago
The overstated it by using the wrong metric: proceeds, not profits. The facts of the case, which demonstrate Nacchio selling out of his position in his own company based on private information unavailable to his common shareholders, remain (so far as I can see) unimpeached. Why are you defending this person?
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  Not GP, but: ⚫ Defendants are entitled to defense. You might even say it's in the name. ⚫ People are entitled to exploration and speculation of both history and legal issues. Legally guaranteed that right in some places. ⚫ Why are you so intent on prosecuting him? For that matter, I note a pretty pronounced pro-Spook bias in many of your posts. ⚫ The circumstances which lead to Qwest's precarious financial state were largely, some might say entirely, the result of the Government's actions against the company for failure to comply with NSL and other intelligence requests. ⚫ I see nothing even in the prosecution's case which establishes that the sale of stock 1) wasn't part of a longer-term asset sale, that 2) it wasn't part of a pre-planned asset divestiture plan. Quite common, there's been previous discussion on HN, I believe, on planned sales by Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer of Microsoft stock. ⚫ If some of the "material, non-public information" related to surveillance requests, Nacchio was pretty much in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. Specifically: he was culpable if he disclosed the reason for target undershoots, or if he didn't. The point remains that the document you've provided as definitive evidence is anything but.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Do you understand what a stipulation is? Nacchio acknowledged the trades I posted from the indictment. Your argument seems to depend on recognizing a dispute where none exists.
    - dredmorbius 12y ago
      The trades having happened doesn't mean that the rest of the Government's case was relevant. Were there other trades outside this period?