[lawnchair_larry]

I can't speak for the jury.

Perhaps if you disagree that it's "clear cut", you at least agree that it was plausible. It wasn't simply bullying, that seems certain.

His defense was not that he didn't trade based on a tip, but that he never agreed to keep the tip confidential, and he challenged the definition of what an insider is.

This is a technicality. That's the problem with insider trading laws - "insider" isn't really defined. So, although it's often common sense and most people can make a judgment call on the spirit of the law, this often won't be sufficient for a trial. Still, this doesn't mean the SEC is wrong to pursue such cases.