Anonymous ID: 0ad858 July 28, 2022, 1:22 a.m. No.16884615   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5000 >>7068

>>16884139

>https://twitter.com/KingMakerFT/status/1517854814805409794

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638.94.0.pdf

 

First, the defendant’s portrayal of the joint venture at issue as ill-defined, “[in]coherent,”

and too “complicated” for a jury to understand is simply wrong. (Def. Br. at 19). Federal jury

instructions have stated that in order to prove a conspiracy:

the Government is not required to show that two or more people sat around

a table and entered into a solemn pact, orally or in writing, stating that they

had formed a conspiracy [] and spelling out all of the details. . . . It is rare

that a conspiracy can be proven by direct evidence of an explicit agreement.

United States v. Maxwell, No. 20-CR-330 (AJN), 2021 WL 5999410, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19,

2021) (emphasis added). But meeting to agree on the express goal of a joint venture is precisely

what happened here, on more than one occasion. In particular, the evidence at trial will show that

in or around June 2016, the individuals referred to in the Indictment as Tech Executive-1,

Case 1:21-cr-00582-CRC Document 94 Filed 04/23/22 Page 1 of 8

2

Originator-1, and other researchers begin to discuss searching for and collecting derogatory internet

data about the online activities of Donald Trump and his associates. Around this time, Originator1 assembled and shared initial purported data with Tech Executive-1 (who, in turn, shared the data

with the defendant).

The evidence will further show that the joint venture continued and crystallized early in

August 2016 when the defendant, Tech Executive-1, and agents of the Clinton Campaign met at

Law Firm-1. In particular, on August 12, 2016, the defendant, Tech Executive-1, the Clinton

Campaign’s General Counsel (Campaign Lawyer-1), and the co-founder of the Clinton Campaign’s

hired investigative firm (the U.S. Investigative Firm) met in Campaign Lawyer-1’s office. There,

they discussed the same Russian Bank-1 allegations that the defendant would later bring to the FBI.

The evidence will show that at the meeting, the parties agreed to conduct work in the hope that it

would benefit the Clinton Campaign, namely, gathering and disseminating purportedly derogatory

data regarding Trump and his associates’ internet activities. In particular, the Government expects

the evidence will show that as a result of these conversations and during this same time period,

Tech Executive-1 did exactly that: he tasked employees from multiple Internet companies and a

university working under a pending national security contract to mine and gather vast amounts of

internet metadata in order to support an “inference” and “narrative” tying the candidate to Russia.

And calendar entries reflect that as he obtained the results of these taskings, Tech Executive-1

conducted further communications, meetings, and calls with Law Firm-1, including: an August 17,

2016 call with the defendant and Campaign Lawyer-1; an August 19, 2016 meeting with the

defendant and Campaign Lawyer-1; and a September 8, 2016 call and meeting with the defendant—

all of which the defendant billed to the Clinton Campaign.