DENVER -- Two former top-level Qwest executives testified in the Joe Nacchio insider trading trial on Tuesday, supporting the prosecution's assertion that the company's former CEO knew Qwest was not going to make its 2001 revenue goals.

Nacchio is accused of dumping more than $100 million worth of stock in 2001 based on nonpublic information that the company could be at financial risk and may not meet revenue targets.

Former Qwest CFO Robin Szeliga gave testimony for the second day Tuesday, saying that Nacchio made revenue goals his top priority despite repeated warnings from top executives and mid-level managers that the company might not meet its 2001 financial targets.

The defense in their cross-examination argued that Nacchio was essentially more optimistic with the company's potential for growth than most department heads.

They add that Nacchio believed the need for fiberoptics in 2001 would be "mind blowing."

The defense said Nacchio also knew of classified deals between Qwest and the U.S. government, and believed the government's big needs would translate to big money for Qwest.

Szeliga testified that she did not believe those deals were reason for optimism.

Former Qwest wholesale sales chief Greg Casey also testified Tuesday, saying there was so much competition in late 2000 that Qwest's revenues were destined to miss the mark in 2001, adding that everybody could have seen that coming. Casey said, "...everybody and their uncle was buidling fiberoptic lines (at that time.)"

Casey said so much supply created lower prices and demand.

He testified that he told Nacchio in late 2000 that, "everything would have to go right" for Qwest to meet its 2001 target goals.

Casey testified, "In anybody's book that would have been a Herculean task."

Casey added that he felt Qwest had "drained the pond" when it came to revenue sources.

Defense attorneys on Monday filed a motion to strike testimony of a victim of alleged insider trading, and moved for a mistrial on the basis that prejudicial, inadmissible testimony was presented to the jury.

The judge gave the prosecution two days to respond to the motion and could possibly make a ruling later this week.