The One Telco Exec Who Resisted The NSA Has Been Released From 4+ Years In Jail

link

Now this is very interesting.
So here we have a story about a guy that told the NSA to go the hell.
And then he gets hauled in on charges for insider trading.
However he says it was retaliation for not complying with NSA demads.
And what makes it more interesting was that certain evidence could not be used because it was classified.
Certainly paints an interesting picture with all the leaks from Snowden.
Maybe his argument has merit.

However, it was only later that it started to come out that Nacchio was alone among all of the major telco execs to tell the NSA to get lost when they came calling, demanding the ability to basically tap Qwest's entire network. For years, Nacchio has insisted that the entire lawsuit against him was retaliation for his refusal. When he first made those claims, it sounded far fetched and ridiculous. However, in the intervening years, as more and more details of the NSA's activities have become clear, Nacchio's initial arguments seem a hell of a lot more plausible.

reply to post by grey580


Good catch! I didn't know that Nacchio claimed that.

It could definitely have merit, but he was a crook too and so his jail term was justified but maybe his point is/was that they wouldn't have tried nearly as hard if not for him resisting and refusing their efforts to "tap" the QWEST network.

Time to do some digging on this. I hope others do too.

BTW - S&F!

reply to post by Riffrafter

It could definitely have merit, but he was a crook too and so his jail term was justified but maybe his point is/was that they wouldn't have tried nearly as hard if not for him resisting and refusing their efforts to "tap" the QWEST network.

You can't say for certain he was guilty when it's quite possible that information which proves his innocence was simply deemed "classified" before trial.

How exactly are materials deemed classified for an insider trading case anyway?

Mr. Nacchio said he still believes his insider-trading prosecution was government retaliation for rebuffing requests in 2001 from the National Security Agency to access his customers' phone records. His plans to use that belief as a defense at trial never materialized; some of the evidence he wanted to use was deemed classified and barred from being introduced.

Forget that congress just overturned the law that allows them to insider trade (didn't they?).

Insider trading is apparently like jaywalking it seems. And only the random public who stupidly invest money they don't know how to move around, are the only ones waiting for the walk light on the exchanges.

reply to post by boncho

You can't say for certain he was guilty when it's quite possible that information which proves his innocence was simply deemed "classified" before trial.

True, except I didn't say he was guilty of those charges, just that he was a crook.

I worked in that industry for many years and it was pretty widely known within the industry - years before he was charged - that he was involved in many shady dealings that either enriched him, his company(ies) or both. I personally knew at least 2 I'll call them "upper-mid level execs" that worked for him over the years who personally attested to that.

It wasn't considered that big a deal at the time. Not quite business as usual, but more in the category of worse than most, but better than some.

Remember Bernie Ebbers?

On a final note, I don't feel very strongly about it either way. Just call it an informed opinion from someone in the telco industry for a number of years. I could certainly be wrong, and it is not my goal to hang the poor schmuck.

I'm far more interested in the NSA angle, and if true, can certainly believe that contributed to his conviction. At best it didn't win him any friends in high places...

YMMV, void where prohibited, etc.

Riffrafter
reply to post by grey580

 

Good catch! I didn't know that Nacchio claimed that.

It could definitely have merit, but he was a crook too and so his jail term was justified but maybe his point is/was that they wouldn't have tried nearly as hard if not for him resisting and refusing their efforts to "tap" the QWEST network. Time to do some digging on this. I hope others do too.

Riffrafter: Please be advised - before calling an innocent man a crook the proper thing to do would be to prove it - to back up your outrageous claim with solid unbiased research. The Snowden revelations alone are enough to prove Joseph Nacchio's innocence, and they have succeeded in doing just that. Mr Nacchio will be filing a lawsuit in short order.

I've been following this case since its inception in 2007 and I have done the research on this matter, and I am certain he was framed by the NSA with the assistance of the dirty thieving crooks on Wall Street, and with the false testimony of several regulators at the SEC, none of whom have gone to jail for unbridled thievery of the public trust, outright stealing, for lying, and for rampant insider trading.

BTW: I am NOT obliged to post my research here. Why? Because I am not the one making false claims - you are. So you have an obligation to provide it here and now. You may consider this a challenge.

YodHeVauHe
before calling an innocent man a crook the proper thing to do would be to prove it - to back up your outrageous claim with solid unbiased research.

Well, he was convicted in court, beyond a reasonable doubt. Calling him a crook is just acknowledging that. Now, if you disagree with the evidence provided during trial, I am all for hearing the reasons.

reply to post by AnonymousCitizen


The burden is on the accuser - the one making the false charge.........you apparently missed the last line of my post: see below.

BTW: I am NOT obliged to post my research here. Why? Because I am not the one making false claims - you are. So you have an obligation to provide it here and now. You may consider this a challenge.

I withdraw my post, staying out of this one.

AnonymousCitizen

YodHeVauHe
before calling an innocent man a crook the proper thing to do would be to prove it - to back up your outrageous claim with solid unbiased research.

Well, he was convicted in court, beyond a reasonable doubt. Calling him a crook is just acknowledging that. Now, if you disagree with the evidence provided during trial, I am all for hearing the reasons.

There was information he claims would have exonerated him, which was deemed classified by the NSA and not allowed in his trial. That alone is enough to cast reasonable doubt. Of course, the jurors were not privy to that information, and I would bet that they were not even allowed to know the existence since it was not allowed in trial.

The US has a 93% conviction rate, in most balanced places they are more around 60-70%. The only ones as high as the US are corrupt places like China and Russia. Or Japan because they are notorious for being iron fists when dealing with crime.

nitawriter.wordpress.com...

This isn't really saying the police and justice system is better, it's showing there is something wrong with it if anything. (especially when you add in the US having the most prisoners in the world) Either that or America just breeds criminals.

1 out of 2.5 men = Criminal? Or, maybe there is something fishy going on.

The OP case is a prime example.

National security in a Telco case? Next thing you know all minor charges will be national security because the enforcement officers don't want their information released.

"I'm sorry, you can't question the allegations against you, the officer is not willing to attend court, so we are taking his comments as fact. We need to protect our officers, national security you know... What? Fair trial. This IS fair, you can state your case, as long as it matches with our information it will be deemed accurate..."