>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.