Comments on: Nacchio’s Hearing–before the Judges Who Gave Him Bail–Set for Next Week http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/nacchios-hearing-before-the-judges-who-gave-him-bail-set-for-next-week/ Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:48:32 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: JohnLopresti http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/nacchios-hearing-before-the-judges-who-gave-him-bail-set-for-next-week/#comment-37781 JohnLopresti Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:17:42 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/nacchios-hearing-before-the-judges-who-gave-him-bail-set-for-next-week/#comment-37781 <p>I wonder if Gillespie’s accession to the Rovian nonCorner office related in part to the executive council paradigm emanating from FourthBranch, as in the duckblind absolute absence of camaraderie chat between a certain AssociateJustice and the Veep concering the EnergyTaskForce proceedings. I would expect even USTelecomAssoc to have had a certain resistance to upstart Qwest’s bragadocchio as the least cooperative member of the Good Ole Club which is USTA. (If you Googl USTA you need to add one more parameter so the finds exclude the Tennis Association which also is a PAC). Which is to say, letting Nacchio speak about the competition for security or defense contracts as part of his defense in the insider trading scandal is going to exacerbate longstanding friction between his former employer and the rest of the USTA oligarchs. The question would be how venturesome his attorney’s discovery would be allowed to become; and, after all, Qw was sufficiently monopolist and incumbency imbued to belong to that insider aggregation at the highest level, so N’s own telco morality would keep revelations in court to a minimum. I wonder what Chris Cox thinks of what the proper defense bounds might be at this early stage. I know little of the expanse of TalkLeft’s spectrum of clientele, but I look forward to visiting there for the live impressions. As usual, if I could find a transcript, the research effort for later history writing would be improved, for my files’ purposes.</p> I wonder if Gillespie’s accession to the Rovian nonCorner office related in part to the executive council paradigm emanating from FourthBranch, as in the duckblind absolute absence of camaraderie chat between a certain AssociateJustice and the Veep concering the EnergyTaskForce proceedings. I would expect even USTelecomAssoc to have had a certain resistance to upstart Qwest’s bragadocchio as the least cooperative member of the Good Ole Club which is USTA. (If you Googl USTA you need to add one more parameter so the finds exclude the Tennis Association which also is a PAC). Which is to say, letting Nacchio speak about the competition for security or defense contracts as part of his defense in the insider trading scandal is going to exacerbate longstanding friction between his former employer and the rest of the USTA oligarchs. The question would be how venturesome his attorney’s discovery would be allowed to become; and, after all, Qw was sufficiently monopolist and incumbency imbued to belong to that insider aggregation at the highest level, so N’s own telco morality would keep revelations in court to a minimum. I wonder what Chris Cox thinks of what the proper defense bounds might be at this early stage. I know little of the expanse of TalkLeft’s spectrum of clientele, but I look forward to visiting there for the live impressions. As usual, if I could find a transcript, the research effort for later history writing would be improved, for my files’ purposes.

]]> By: PetePierce http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/nacchios-hearing-before-the-judges-who-gave-him-bail-set-for-next-week/#comment-37710 PetePierce Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:04:37 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/nacchios-hearing-before-the-judges-who-gave-him-bail-set-for-next-week/#comment-37710 <p>I posted this on a few threads because I want everyone to realize how spineless most of the Democrats are because I guarandamtee you that every Democratic Senator was given the prime oportunity to sign onto this letter via email today and only 14 did. It gives me a very bad vibe.</p> <p><strong>Look at all the Dems who are conspicuously absent from this letter–wonder if it’s an omen of bad tidings to come?</strong></p> <p><a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004890.php" rel="nofollow"><strong>Senators Lobby Reid to Keep Telecom Immunity out of Surveillance Bill</strong></a><br /> <em><br /> Dear Majority Leader Reid: </em></p> <p>We understand that the Senate will shortly be considering amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. As you know, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Judiciary Committee have reported very different versions of the FISA Amendments Act, S. 2248, and it is up to you, as Majority Leader, to decide how the Senate considers this legislation. </p> <p>We urge you to make the version of S. 2248 reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee the base bill to be considered by the full Senate. While the structure of Title I of both bills is the same, and both make improvements over the Protect America Act, the reasonable changes to Title I made in the Judiciary Committee ensure that the FISA Court will be able to conduct much-needed oversight of the implementation of these broad new surveillance authorities, and help to better protect the rights of innocent Americans. While we appreciate the hard work that the Intelligence Committee has done on this legislation, the process by which the Judiciary Committee considered, drafted, amended and reported out its bill was an open one, allowing outside experts and the public at large the opportunity to review and comment. With regard to legislation so directly connected to the constitutional rights of Americans, the results of this open process should be accorded great weight, especially in light of the Judiciary Committee’s unique role and expertise in protecting those rights.</p> <p>We also believe that the Judiciary Committee bill is preferable because it does not provide immunity for telecom companies that allegedly cooperated with the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. As this is such a controversial issue, we feel it would be appropriate to require the proponents of immunity to make their case on the floor.</p> <p>Thank you for your consideration.</p> <p>Sincerely,</p> <p>Russell D. Feingold (D-WI)</p> <p>Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT)</p> <p>Barack Obama (D-IL)</p> <p>Bernard Sanders (I-VT)</p> <p>Robert Menendez (D-NJ)</p> <p>Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE)</p> <p>Sherrod Brown (D-OH)</p> <p>Tom Harkin (D-IA)</p> <p>Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD)</p> <p>Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)</p> I posted this on a few threads because I want everyone to realize how spineless most of the Democrats are because I guarandamtee you that every Democratic Senator was given the prime oportunity to sign onto this letter via email today and only 14 did. It gives me a very bad vibe.

Look at all the Dems who are conspicuously absent from this letter–wonder if it’s an omen of bad tidings to come?

Senators Lobby Reid to Keep Telecom Immunity out of Surveillance Bill

Dear Majority Leader Reid:

We understand that the Senate will shortly be considering amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. As you know, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Judiciary Committee have reported very different versions of the FISA Amendments Act, S. 2248, and it is up to you, as Majority Leader, to decide how the Senate considers this legislation.

We urge you to make the version of S. 2248 reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee the base bill to be considered by the full Senate. While the structure of Title I of both bills is the same, and both make improvements over the Protect America Act, the reasonable changes to Title I made in the Judiciary Committee ensure that the FISA Court will be able to conduct much-needed oversight of the implementation of these broad new surveillance authorities, and help to better protect the rights of innocent Americans. While we appreciate the hard work that the Intelligence Committee has done on this legislation, the process by which the Judiciary Committee considered, drafted, amended and reported out its bill was an open one, allowing outside experts and the public at large the opportunity to review and comment. With regard to legislation so directly connected to the constitutional rights of Americans, the results of this open process should be accorded great weight, especially in light of the Judiciary Committee’s unique role and expertise in protecting those rights.

We also believe that the Judiciary Committee bill is preferable because it does not provide immunity for telecom companies that allegedly cooperated with the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. As this is such a controversial issue, we feel it would be appropriate to require the proponents of immunity to make their case on the floor.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Russell D. Feingold (D-WI)

Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT)

Barack Obama (D-IL)

Bernard Sanders (I-VT)

Robert Menendez (D-NJ)

Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE)

Sherrod Brown (D-OH)

Tom Harkin (D-IA)

Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD)

Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)

]]> By: froggie http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/nacchios-hearing-before-the-judges-who-gave-him-bail-set-for-next-week/#comment-37659 froggie Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:31:59 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/nacchios-hearing-before-the-judges-who-gave-him-bail-set-for-next-week/#comment-37659 <p>Marcy,</p> <p>Initially I didn’t have much sympathy for Nacchio, but after reading (I think it was in RawStory) that this might be a case of “government revenge” in connection with the Telecom spying fiasco, I’ve smelled a rat. I’m very glad you folks are on to this case, it’ll keep me glued again to emptywheel like I was with the Libby case!</p> Marcy,

Initially I didn’t have much sympathy for Nacchio, but after reading (I think it was in RawStory) that this might be a case of “government revenge” in connection with the Telecom spying fiasco, I’ve smelled a rat. I’m very glad you folks are on to this case, it’ll keep me glued again to emptywheel like I was with the Libby case!

]]> By: emptywheel http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/nacchios-hearing-before-the-judges-who-gave-him-bail-set-for-next-week/#comment-37610 emptywheel Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:09:25 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/nacchios-hearing-before-the-judges-who-gave-him-bail-set-for-next-week/#comment-37610 <p>That’s great, Jeralyn</p> <p>I was hoping you’d be liveblogging it.</p> That’s great, Jeralyn

I was hoping you’d be liveblogging it.

]]> By: bmaz http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/nacchios-hearing-before-the-judges-who-gave-him-bail-set-for-next-week/#comment-37607 bmaz Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:08:12 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/nacchios-hearing-before-the-judges-who-gave-him-bail-set-for-next-week/#comment-37607 <p>Outstanding Ms. Merritt! Will you please let us know the plan, and site, before the argument and when you have a better idea? Your work is sincerely appreciated.</p> Outstanding Ms. Merritt! Will you please let us know the plan, and site, before the argument and when you have a better idea? Your work is sincerely appreciated.

]]> By: Jeralyn Merritt http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/nacchios-hearing-before-the-judges-who-gave-him-bail-set-for-next-week/#comment-37606 Jeralyn Merritt Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:02:46 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/nacchios-hearing-before-the-judges-who-gave-him-bail-set-for-next-week/#comment-37606 <p>Marcy, I will be at the oral arguments and they said we can bring our laptops in, so I’ll either be live-blogging Marcy-style at TalkLeft or 5280.com or providing a full report after it’s over.</p> Marcy, I will be at the oral arguments and they said we can bring our laptops in, so I’ll either be live-blogging Marcy-style at TalkLeft or 5280.com or providing a full report after it’s over.

]]> By: selise http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/nacchios-hearing-before-the-judges-who-gave-him-bail-set-for-next-week/#comment-37602 selise Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:59:36 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/nacchios-hearing-before-the-judges-who-gave-him-bail-set-for-next-week/#comment-37602 <p>bmaz - thanks</p> bmaz – thanks

]]> By: bmaz http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/nacchios-hearing-before-the-judges-who-gave-him-bail-set-for-next-week/#comment-37594 bmaz Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:32:37 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/nacchios-hearing-before-the-judges-who-gave-him-bail-set-for-next-week/#comment-37594 <p>Oh, I agree with that; I not only would like to see him get to present his case, I think he was absolutely entitled to do so in the first place. And there is no question but that “he thought he was going to get business but didn’t “; my difference with the conventional wisdom has only ever been as to why he didn’t get that business. I think Nacchio’s appellate argument regarding being unreasonably prevented from presenting his defense case is actually quite strong, but the 10th isn’t the friendliest for the defense if you know what I mean.</p> Oh, I agree with that; I not only would like to see him get to present his case, I think he was absolutely entitled to do so in the first place. And there is no question but that “he thought he was going to get business but didn’t “; my difference with the conventional wisdom has only ever been as to why he didn’t get that business. I think Nacchio’s appellate argument regarding being unreasonably prevented from presenting his defense case is actually quite strong, but the 10th isn’t the friendliest for the defense if you know what I mean.

]]> By: emptywheel http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/nacchios-hearing-before-the-judges-who-gave-him-bail-set-for-next-week/#comment-37568 emptywheel Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:53:39 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/nacchios-hearing-before-the-judges-who-gave-him-bail-set-for-next-week/#comment-37568 <p>bmaz</p> <p>I don’t really care about Nacchio’s motivations. I think his argument that he thought he was going to get business but didn’t rings true from working with govt contracting. Add in the fact taht he’s the one telecom exec who got busted (though many should have), I’d like to see this get retried with his evidence. He may well be guilty as hell. But I’d like to see him present that evidence.</p> bmaz

I don’t really care about Nacchio’s motivations. I think his argument that he thought he was going to get business but didn’t rings true from working with govt contracting. Add in the fact taht he’s the one telecom exec who got busted (though many should have), I’d like to see this get retried with his evidence. He may well be guilty as hell. But I’d like to see him present that evidence.

]]> By: bmaz http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/nacchios-hearing-before-the-judges-who-gave-him-bail-set-for-next-week/#comment-37517 bmaz Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:01:35 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/nacchios-hearing-before-the-judges-who-gave-him-bail-set-for-next-week/#comment-37517 <p>Selise - No. The general rule, and a fair one for you to assume pretty much anytime you are discussing an appeal, is that they are on the record transmitted from the trial court only. It is not impossible to have new evidence interjected, but it is rare and the chances of such a situation being applicable to our general discussions is pretty remote. I would also note that in most of the occasional instances where new evidence does pop up, if the appellate court thinks it of any significance, they remand the case back to the trial court for determinations thereon.</p> Selise – No. The general rule, and a fair one for you to assume pretty much anytime you are discussing an appeal, is that they are on the record transmitted from the trial court only. It is not impossible to have new evidence interjected, but it is rare and the chances of such a situation being applicable to our general discussions is pretty remote. I would also note that in most of the occasional instances where new evidence does pop up, if the appellate court thinks it of any significance, they remand the case back to the trial court for determinations thereon.

]]>