1 2 CL.:-:-.F < , ·. \ . ~T!U;~:T SOUlHCi;:N u;c,, ,.;:~ i uf- c.-.uFURN!A BY DEPUTY 1 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \ 5cr\5UU-lJlB Case No. 9 I N F 0 R MA T I 0 N Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 18 U.S.C. 1512 (c) (2) - Obstruction of Justice TODD BOSNICH, 12 Defendant. 13 ~------------------------------------~ 14 The United States charges: 15 INTRODUCTORY ALLEGATIONS 16 1. In May 2013, Carl run for California's DeMaio ("DeMaio") 52nd Congressional 17 intention to 18 following year. 19 campaign to serve as its "Policy Director." 20 2. In In October May 2013, 2014, Defendant Defendant was was announced his District the hired by DeMaio's terminated by DeMaio's 21 campaign. 22 occurred immediately before and after his termination, are contested. 23 Defendant 24 advances 25 complained 26 and later offered a $50, 27 disclosure" agreement. 28 II The reason for his termination, claimed towards to that him DeMaio in DeMaio's the made Spring a series of campaign manager, otlo as well as the events that 2014, he was of unwanted and first that sexual when he marginalized "payment" in exchange for signing a "non- 1 3. For its part the 1 DeMaio Defendant was 3 but 4 asserted that Defendant was first 5 early May 2014) 6 inaccurate and plagiarized. 7 (on May 24 1 8 "misappropriated 11 9 asserted that Defendant vandalized its campaign headquarters 10 28 1 of poor work performance. a maintained 2 because terminated not because of campaign that sexual harassment claim[ Specifically 1 the Campaign terminated as a paid employee (in because he issued a report to the media that was both 2014) The Campaign then alleged that Defendant was barred from working in any capacity because he several internal emails. Finally the 1 Campaign (on May 2014) after he had been fired for cause. 11 4. Sometime between the late evening of May 27 1 12 the early morning of May 28 13 headquarters 14 office 15 items 16 information[ as well as the office s cable modem and router. cut telephone equipment~ stolen 2014 1 an intruder at DeMaio[ s campaign I cords[ broke computers~ laptop and stole several items from the office. was a 2014 1 and containing notebook damaged Among the campaign sensitive 1 17 5. On May 29 1 1 DeMaio 1 s Defendant wrote several emails to the 18 Chief-of-Staff 19 initiated contact by sending several internal DeMaio campaign emails 20 that 21 Director. 22 harassed him and threatened to destroy him if he did not stay quiet 23 about the harassment. he for 2014 received during He time reiterated On May 31 1 6. 24 also his opponent[ 2014 1 Scott serving as his claim the the that Peters 1 Peters. Defendant Campaign 1 s DeMaio had Policy sexually Campaign Chief-of-Staff 25 delivered the emails received from Defendant to the San Diego Police 26 Department 27 unexpectedly and she decided to give them to the police because: 28 they ( "SDPD included 11 ) • She allegations told the regarding 2 SDPD that possible the emails threats and arrived (1) sexual 1 harassment; and 2 between 3 campaign office. (2) Defendant's 7. 4 she emails and that same Later who thought any the might recent day, some burglary SDPD involvement be connection of detectives the DeMaio interviewed 5 Defendant, 6 contrary, 7 DeMaio on a number of occasions; 8 Campaign Manager about the harassment; 9 offered Defendant a 10 would keep silent. In addition, Defendant stated that he was informed 11 that 12 DeMaio's harassment. Defendant told the detectives: his 13 denied there career 8. (2) job with the would be On June 2, the ( 1) he had been harassed by burglary. To the that he complained to DeMaio's and (3) the Campaign Manager San Diego Republican Party if destroyed 2014, in if he spoke to anyone he about Defendant recorded an interview with 14 a local radio personality. 15 the allegations he had previously told the detectives. Defendant also 16 stated for 17 Although these emails were allegedly anonymous, Defendant stated that 18 he 19 DeMaio) was behind the threats. 20 allegations 21 increasingly wide array of news media outlets. was the first "positive" 22 email 24 residence. 25 information, 26 used it 27 threatening 28 email that (including 9. 23 time On account June (i.e. , When During the interview, that he had received threatening emails. DeMaio the 5, (or someone Subsequently, Defendant repeated his allegedly 2014, closely associated with anonymous Defendant set elimanagment®yahoo. com) doing so, Defendant (for the first and only time) account. The ("the from used 3 a to "dummy" an Yahoo his North County false identifying After doing so, he to send a particularly ugly and Threatening Threatening threats) up including gender and date of birth. message Defendant repeated Email") Email to his referenced own personal Defendant's 1 disclosures 2 "anonymous" 3 again worked in politics if Defendant didn't stop making accusations 4 against DeMaio. to author 10. 5 of the email Defendant's himself main to ensure purpose bolster suggested in his that that Defendant sending the the never Threatening Email 7 threatening him to remain silent about the alleged sexual harassment. 8 In this fashion, 9 appeared not was would and 6 10 to Chief-of-Staff Peters' claims that DeMaio was Defendant's claims about DeMaio's sexual harassment only to be legitimate, but to take on a new and, perhaps, more sinister context. 11 11. Indeed, 12 serious 13 Bureau of 14 investigating the Threatening Email received by Defendant and/or the 15 purported sexual harassment of Defendant by DeMaio. 16 allegations, the United States requested an interview with Defendant. 17 nature of the SDPD was sufficiently concerned about the the allegations Investigation 12. ("FBI") On June 16, Assistant if notified they were the Based upon these FBI Special Agents Alex Murray and 19 interviewed 20 retained to prepare 21 DeMaio. 22 interviewed 23 whether 24 emails, which he had discussed with the SDPD and the media. Defendant the as DeMaio 13. in the victim had In Attorney presence filing of a meeting, a U.S. the sent Defendant was investigation or caused sending the Defendant 27 investigation of 28 source him the Threatening 4 Defendant that with Defendant that Halpern advised connection harassment allegations against DeMaio. sent attorneys L.B. sexual harassment suit against 26 DeMaio, of Phillip in response, Federal interested in Gabe At and see they 18 25 Ramirez 2014, to that an reiterated of he the his was being into threatening prior sexual In an attempt to influence the also Email claimed from that the an anonymous "elimanagment" 1 account. During 2 Defendant 3 provided a copy to the government) . described 14. 4 the this initial meeting detail the in At this meeting, emails was DeMaio or with federal Threatening authorities, Email (and later Defendant speculated that the author 5 of someone associated with his 6 Indeed, 7 communicating via Twitter) 8 that DeMaio used this tactic quite often. 9 this campaign. Defendant stated that DeMaio was fond of sending emails meeting, Defendant investigating using alias accounts. was informed Prior to the conclusion of that United would take States subpoenas and other process had to be issued and returned. 12 was also informed that lying 'to federal agents was a crime and that 13 he 14 investigation. 15 15. During acted the and fall, provided by following up all 18 Among 19 identify the source of the "threatening" emails. Alex available things, the and 17, Gabe related· to Jury issued 2014, at Ramirez a a federal the United Defendant in Threatening Email. subpoenas meeting attempting with Phillip L. B. 23 that he and his mother received a total of three threatening emails. 24 When questioned 25 Defendant falsely asserted several times that he 26 sent 27 suspected that the author might have been DeMaio or one of his close 28 associates. the Threatening Email. 5 the U.S. Special 22 specifically about Assistant FBI to Agents Halpern and Emily Keifer, and the as 21 him Murray leads Grand On October information early 17 16. false summer time Defendant influencing States 20 the late improperly 16 other upon about some would 11 careful which the continue to. be matter, Defendant stressed 10 needed this (and Attorneys Defendant repeated his claim authorship Defendant of these emails, "did not know" also stated that who he COUNT 1 1 18 2 u.s.c. 1512 § (2) (c) OBSTRUCION OF JUSTICE 3 17. 4 Paragraphs 1 through 16 of the Introductory 5 Allegations are realleged and incorporated by reference. 18. 6 and Beginning in approximately May 2014, and continuing up 7 to through November 8 California 9 obstructed, influenced, and impeded an official proceeding. and 2014, elsewhere, 10 within the Southern TODD defendant District BOSNICH of corruptly METHODS AND MEANS 11 would 19. It was a method and mean of BOSNICH's obstruction that and did 12 he 13 Threatening Email in an attempt to influence the investigation into 14 DeMaio. 20. 15 make false and misleading statements about the It was a further part of his obstruction that BOSNICH 16 would and did act corruptly by giving the government information that 17 was inaccurate in order to influence a pending official proceeding. All 18 19 in violation of Title 18, United States Section 1512 (c) (2). 20 LAURA"E. DUFFY 21 22 23 ~d·" DATE 24 25 26 27 (ot0) DATED (~ '~ L.B. HALPERN Assistant U.S. Attorney E~ Assistant 28 6 u.s. Attorney Code,