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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Exactly... friendly conversation with people who can lie to you at will to extract information, but to whom you cannot lie at all? No thank you, refer all questions to my lawyer please.
While that double-standard is unfortunate I do not see how their ability to lie to someone should make that person tell lies. Is the alternate universe where the police are not allowed to lie to you is also one where if an officer makes a factually inaccurate statement during questioning gets the interview tossed from court? I suspect that it is and in that case I prefer this universe.
Aside from being insecure it is also not robust (fragile?). So, suppose Paul can lie to Alice and Bob, and they cannot lie to him. He can probably interview them separately, too. We can ask how the system will break, either inadvertently (fragile) or due to deliberate pressure (insecure).
Paul's later accusation (of lying) depends on his ability to remember with perfect accuracy all of his discussions with Alice and Bob; and if anything confuses him he might take it as grounds for the accusation. This leads to fragility: Paul's use of lies will likely create a situation where he himself is more likely to be misled, which he could then pin on Alice and Bob.
He could also put people in a stressful situation hoping to coax out the truth, only to coax out a lie. Paul can tell Alice that he thinks Bob is guilty, but that Bob has just put all of the blame on Alice and made her look awful. Paul says, "I'm going to have to put you in jail, Alice, if you can't give me something to incriminate Bob." She doesn't have anything to incriminate Bob so she lies; he might later discover the lie and bust her for it.
For that matter, Paul can stick to subject matters which Alice and Bob find embarrassing, and thus (advertently or inadvertently) stress them out into lying to him. Paul can suggest that even if his allegations are untrue, he will bring them to public light and their peers will judge them based on those allegations. (The example here would look like: Paul is pursuing a child porn ring which has nothing to do with Alice and Bob, but he thinks they're central to it. He tells them that if they don't immediately help him out, he's going to have to put them on public trial and then all of their neighbours and business associates will judge them for it. Then he starts asking questions about the other people in the ring, and they lie about it.)
This only gets compounded if he is allowed to lie to them on procedural matters. For example, Paul informs them "You're allowed to lie to me." Or, Paul informs them, "I'm allowed to imprison you if you say anything which I disagree with." It can be subtler and less coercive: suppose he says that their best option to protect themselves is to apologize for a related act to some appropriate third-party, Carol. So the think that they're lying to Carol (legally allowed) but Paul thinks they're lying to him (a federal offense).
And finally, even if Alice and Bob tell the absolute truth to Paul, it might be the case that Carol -- whether lying or honest does not matter -- contradicts their story and is otherwise trustworthy as a witness. Perhaps she really thinks she saw Bob that day, but in fact it wasn't him. Now both Alice and Bob have said that he was not there, but Paul interprets those as lies and prosecutes them for it.
I am more or less aware of these scenarios and they certainly raise some concerns about potential for abuse, but the problem is that the opposite scenario where federal agents or LEOs of any kind can not lie is not feasible.
I asked another commenter below for an example of someone being convicted of making false statements when they did not know they were speaking to a federal agent, I would like to see one as the lying in the example above was during a formal interview process.
I also find that a lot of these sorts of scenarios assume that the courts are incompetent, that the burden of proof does not still apply. The judiciary has a duty to apply the law in a reasonable way that complies with its intent - I doubt any judge would regard the intent of the false statements law to be to allow an FBI agent to tell someone to lie to them so they can then catch them lying and convict them. (This of course is why if you undermine the courts you undermine democracy.)
And while we are at it what about the double standard that they get to drive over the speed limit and through red lights. Don't even get me started about the double standard that they can serve search warrants but you and I cannot.
Is it legal for them to violate traffic laws (not counting hot pursuit and maybe a few other delimited circumstances)? I supposed not, and that their practical immunity was regular informal corruption (instead of corruption written into the law), but I'd like to know if not so.
I think it is telling that you chose to only respond to half of my comment. NO, it is not legal for them to break traffic laws for non-emergencies. It is also illegal for an officer to search my house without a valid search warrant. Furthermore it is illegal for an officer to discharge his weapon on Main Street for no particular reason.
That being said they can do all of these things legally in the furtherance of their duties (your "delimited circumstances") as law enforcement officers. This is precisely why it is silly to speak of "a double standard," law enforcement officers are different from civilians. How would a society enforce the rule of law if we were equals?
Because the things you mention are both legal and lawful. Bearing false witness (lying) is unlawful [and therefore can not be legitimately legal, although people will claim that it is].
The rule of law is that the state and its agents obey the law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law To the extent a power can enact "Whatever I do is the law" it's vacuous, of course. But power and discretion for state agents really is the opposite of the meaning of the phrase as I learned it.
We are supposedly equals, and those from cops to the president are our employees, not our masters, though I'd agree that in the U.S. reality has gotten way off the model. Anyway, re enforcement among equals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth
Cops break traffic laws all the time, not just when they should. (And other laws too, I suppose less often but more importantly.) These traffic violations are the most visible case of public servants deeming themselves above the law; when you started your comment with them and equated them with the rest, I (apparently) mistook you to be defending them. It's good if I was wrong.
The article outlines law enforcement without cops. You asked how this was possible.
Is there a typo on the wikipedia page you linked to? Or did you intend to point to a civilization from 930-1262? A time when there was no gunpowder (in europe), movable type printing press, penicillin, electricity, combustion engines, etc...
I gave your rhetorical question a real answer; it's clear you expected none. Now you're responding like an 18th-century royalist might to someone citing the precedent of Athenian democracy. I've had enough of this exchange.
I don't have a problem with obstruction of justice being a crime, but I do believe that the law should make it similarly illegal for a law-enforcement officer to lie to a criminal suspect or witness.
If we care about the truth as a moral and cultural foundation, it seems reasonable we demand it on both sides of the playing field.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
This seems like a pretty clear case of 9th circuit = best circuit. I personally factor "remaining in the 9th" heavily into my decisions about where to live and work within the US.
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.
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.
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).
49 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 90.8 ms ] threadhttp://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.
The article argues the 'insider trading' charge was related to the gag order.
If that's a legit summary, the retaliatory removal of contracts his company was in-line for --- doesn't seem very far stretched.
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
(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.
Holy fuck that's terrifying. I had no idea.
Time for a re-watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Paul's later accusation (of lying) depends on his ability to remember with perfect accuracy all of his discussions with Alice and Bob; and if anything confuses him he might take it as grounds for the accusation. This leads to fragility: Paul's use of lies will likely create a situation where he himself is more likely to be misled, which he could then pin on Alice and Bob.
He could also put people in a stressful situation hoping to coax out the truth, only to coax out a lie. Paul can tell Alice that he thinks Bob is guilty, but that Bob has just put all of the blame on Alice and made her look awful. Paul says, "I'm going to have to put you in jail, Alice, if you can't give me something to incriminate Bob." She doesn't have anything to incriminate Bob so she lies; he might later discover the lie and bust her for it.
For that matter, Paul can stick to subject matters which Alice and Bob find embarrassing, and thus (advertently or inadvertently) stress them out into lying to him. Paul can suggest that even if his allegations are untrue, he will bring them to public light and their peers will judge them based on those allegations. (The example here would look like: Paul is pursuing a child porn ring which has nothing to do with Alice and Bob, but he thinks they're central to it. He tells them that if they don't immediately help him out, he's going to have to put them on public trial and then all of their neighbours and business associates will judge them for it. Then he starts asking questions about the other people in the ring, and they lie about it.)
This only gets compounded if he is allowed to lie to them on procedural matters. For example, Paul informs them "You're allowed to lie to me." Or, Paul informs them, "I'm allowed to imprison you if you say anything which I disagree with." It can be subtler and less coercive: suppose he says that their best option to protect themselves is to apologize for a related act to some appropriate third-party, Carol. So the think that they're lying to Carol (legally allowed) but Paul thinks they're lying to him (a federal offense).
And finally, even if Alice and Bob tell the absolute truth to Paul, it might be the case that Carol -- whether lying or honest does not matter -- contradicts their story and is otherwise trustworthy as a witness. Perhaps she really thinks she saw Bob that day, but in fact it wasn't him. Now both Alice and Bob have said that he was not there, but Paul interprets those as lies and prosecutes them for it.
I asked another commenter below for an example of someone being convicted of making false statements when they did not know they were speaking to a federal agent, I would like to see one as the lying in the example above was during a formal interview process.
I also find that a lot of these sorts of scenarios assume that the courts are incompetent, that the burden of proof does not still apply. The judiciary has a duty to apply the law in a reasonable way that complies with its intent - I doubt any judge would regard the intent of the false statements law to be to allow an FBI agent to tell someone to lie to them so they can then catch them lying and convict them. (This of course is why if you undermine the courts you undermine democracy.)
That being said they can do all of these things legally in the furtherance of their duties (your "delimited circumstances") as law enforcement officers. This is precisely why it is silly to speak of "a double standard," law enforcement officers are different from civilians. How would a society enforce the rule of law if we were equals?
We are supposedly equals, and those from cops to the president are our employees, not our masters, though I'd agree that in the U.S. reality has gotten way off the model. Anyway, re enforcement among equals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth
The second bit is just a knee jerk jab at the US and a link to a wikipedia article with very little context.
The second bit is just a knee jerk jab at the US and a link to a wikipedia article with very little context.
The article outlines law enforcement without cops. You asked how this was possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice
If we care about the truth as a moral and cultural foundation, it seems reasonable we demand it on both sides of the playing field.
"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-J...
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.
This timeline does not make sense.
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).
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.
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.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22918125/former-qw...
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).