Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: A CEO who resisted NSA spying is out of prison. And he feels ‘vindicated’ by Snowden leaks... [View all]OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)52. I wrote about Joseph Nacchio six years ago.
In May 2006, USA TODAY reported that the three telecommunication carriers, AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth had cooperated with the National Security Agency to secretly amass a database of phone call records of tens of millions of Americans (Cauley, 2006). The information was then analyzed to detect calling patterns in an effort to thwart terrorism. Following the reporting of this story, Mr. Nacchios attorney, Herbert Swan, released a statement that said the government had approached Qwest Communications to turn over customers calling records:
Mr. Nacchio made inquiry as to whether a warrant or other legal process had been secured in support of that request. When he learned that no such authority had been granted and that there was a disinclination on the part of authorities to use any legal process, including the Special Court which had been established to handle such matters, Mr. Nacchio concluded that these requests violated the privacy requirements of the Telecommunications Act. (Nakashima & Eggen, 2007).
Mr. Nacchio was convicted in April 2007 of 19 counts of insider trading, selling shares of Qwest stock before the value dropped.
In October 2007, The Rocky Mountain News, The Washington Post, and The New York Times reported that in court filings made by Mr. Naccio, the National Security Agency had approached Qwest Communications to turn over customers call records on February 27, 2001, nearly seven months before the terrorist attacks (Burnett & Smith, 2007, Nakashima & Eggen, 2007, Shane, 2007).
The Nacchio materials suggest that the NSA had sought telco cooperation even before 9/11 undermines the primary argument for letting the phone companies off the hook, which is the claim that they were simply acting in good faith after 9/11, said Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group. (Vuong, 2007).
In return for cooperating, Mr. Naccio asserts, Qwest Communications would receive lucrative government contracts (Burnett & Smith, 2007, Nakashima & Eggen, 2007, Shane, 2007).
In a May 25, 2007 order, U.S. District Court Judge Edward W. Nottingham wrote that Nacchio has asserted that Qwest entered into classified contracts valued at hundreds of millions of dollars, without a competitive bidding process and that in 2000 and 2001, he participated in discussion with high ranking representatives concerning the possibility of awarding additional contracts of a similar nature. He wrote, Those discussions led him to believe that would award Qwest contracts valued at amounts that would more than offset the negative warnings he was receiving about Qwests financial prospects. Nakashima & Eggen, 2007.)
Mr. Naccios conviction, he contends, was retaliation for refusing to cooperate with the government (Burnett & Smith, 2007, Nakashima & Eggen, 2007, Shane, 2007).
U.S. District Judge Edward W. Nottingham would not permit the classified information about the contracts into the court, thereby sinking Mr. Nacchios retaliation defense (Burnett & Smith, 2007. In March 2008, a federal appeals court overturned the 19 insider trading convictions after concluding that the trial judge improperly excluded expert testimony that would have helped Mr. Nacchio advance his defense (Johnson, 2008)
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
101 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

A CEO who resisted NSA spying is out of prison. And he feels ‘vindicated’ by Snowden leaks... [View all]
Indi Guy
Oct 2013
OP
While I am impressed by his integrity, I am disapointed no other CEO followed his lead.
marble falls
Oct 2013
#2
Of course it was retaliation - they had to make an example of him to scare the others. nt
bananas
Oct 2013
#3
Because he committed securities fraud. You apparently think 1%ers should get away with
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#7
Other opinions are well-enough informed to impugn your motivation on this issue.
GliderGuider
Oct 2013
#56
People who claim the verdict is bogus have no credibility unless they review the key documentary
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#64
One wonders if that sentiment is applied consistently, and was given to Ken Lay in 2003.
LanternWaste
Oct 2013
#65
Well, I try to assume that every conviction has a non-0 probability of being wrongful.
GliderGuider
Oct 2013
#67
There's no reason to think he was targeted any more than Skilling and Lay were.
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#77
The trial showed he lied his ass off repeatedly to investors while selling his own
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#87
You must've missed the part where the Gov refused Nacchio's defense even mentioning NSA...
Octafish
Oct 2013
#88
His defense was he thought the company would score some government contracts.
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#92
Well, opposing Bush on the NSA in February 2001 doesn't give him a free pass on breaking the law nt
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#98
I've given you two chances to answer my earlier question, so I'll ask once more...
Indi Guy
Oct 2013
#90
For individuals, they should be held accountable under existing criminal and civil laws.
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#93
Can't be part of the brigade, otherwise. "His narrative matches with the warrantless surveillance
villager
Oct 2013
#13
Nacchio also thought they'd get the same government contracts they'd gotten before. Plus, why *this*
villager
Oct 2013
#19
You mean the stuff the judge wouldn't allow brought to trial, so that actual jurors, and not
villager
Oct 2013
#24
Yes, interesting indeed that of all those crooks, he was the only one who warranted prosecution
villager
Oct 2013
#30
Except for all the others who got prosecuted at the same time like Skilling, Lay,
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#35
The CEO. Paid himself $500 million while running the company into the ground and lying
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#10
Even if your accusations are valid (which I'm not agreeing to), you haven't answered my question...
Indi Guy
Oct 2013
#39
Interesting that, given his verbosity here, geek tragedy still hasn't answered my question.
Indi Guy
Oct 2013
#62
Of course, jurors weren't allowed access to information that judge deemed "classified," so they
villager
Oct 2013
#20
Those contracts were never granted, and he never even tried to prove they were.
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#23
Could be. Or it could be that Nacchio thought he could use the illegal activities of the Bush
struggle4progress
Oct 2013
#14
Odd that one of the only presumed crooks to get prosecuted was the one who stood up to the NSA?
villager
Oct 2013
#21
Care to list those who weren't prosecuted? A much much longer list, I assure you.
villager
Oct 2013
#26
Sure, those who were arrogant and reckless enough to leave a paper trail of
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#32
So you, geek tragedy, can confidently dismiss all the other observers quoted in the OP's article
villager
Oct 2013
#38
Do you think Nacchio was the only person indicted in 2005 for insider trading?
struggle4progress
Oct 2013
#37
It is somewhat curious that Nacchio seems not to have mentioned the NSA matter
struggle4progress
Oct 2013
#34
He didn't see fit to make it an issue until he thought he could use it for his defense
struggle4progress
Oct 2013
#43
The key 3 words: "...six months before...". Besides all else that reeks in this story,
silvershadow
Oct 2013
#42