Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 i…
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?
The insider trading case does not disprove that QWest faced serious economic repercussions for non-compliance.
The question of whether his insider trading charge, which was filed by the SEC four years after his initial actions at QWest, was a response to his non-compliance is a lot less likely. But publicly discrediting your opponents sounds like the type of thing particular agencies do best.