Twitter (now known as X) filed an appeal of a ruling allowing special counsel Jack Smith access to former President’s Twitter account, but was denied.
Prosecutors also received location data, device information and draft tweets. The company argued that complying with the warrant would have prevented Trump from asserting executive privilege.
The court ruled that Twitter was in contempt of court
Federal appeals court upholds ruling granting federal prosecutors access to President Trump’s Twitter account. Twitter owner X was fined $350,000 for failing to comply with order.
Four judges nominated by President Trump penned dissenting opinions. These judges claimed the court allowed an attorney special prosecutor to bypass even the possibility of asserting executive privilege by issuing a search warrant in secret.
The court ruled that Twitter was in violation of the Presidential Records Act
Twitter (now X) provided 32 direct messages to Special Counsel Jack Smith as part of his investigation into interference with the peaceful transfer of power post-20/20 election. Twitter received both a search warrant and nondisclosure order from the government in January.
Four conservative judges on the appeals court argued that compliance with the order would allow prosecutors to invade privileged communications of a sitting president without prior warning, joined by seven Democratic-appointed judges.
The court ruled that Twitter was in violation of the First Amendment
Politico reported that federal prosecutors had obtained a search warrant for former President Trump’s Twitter account, prompting a judge to fine his company $350K after it objected to it due to nondisclosure orders that prohibited it from notifying Trump of the search.
On Tuesday, a federal appeals court denied Twitter’s request to rehear the case. Judges determined that Justice Department had valid concerns that informing Trump could result in evidence destruction or threats to witnesses.
The court ruled that Twitter was in violation of the Fourth Amendment
Federal appeals court denied Twitter (now X) its request to prevent special counsel Jack Smith from accessing its records for election interference investigation, prompting at least four Republican-appointed judges to strongly criticize this ruling.
This ruling gives prosecutors the ability to access former President Donald Trump’s private messages, search history and device data.
The court ruled that Twitter was in violation of the Fifth Amendment
X argued that the court should have disapproved of Smith’s “gambit” of seeking access to Trump’s Twitter account without first considering presidential immunity and noted that several judges who objected were appointed by Donald Trump himself.
Neomi Rao, Gregory Katsas and Karen Henderson were the judges who asserted that allowing warrants obscured any assertion of executive privilege and undermined Congress’ careful balance in creating the Presidential Records Act.
The court ruled that Twitter was in violation of the Sixth Amendment
Twitter (now X) agreed to release information related to Donald Trump?s @realDonaldTrump account, including tweets drafted or favorited and the devices used to access it. Federal prosecutors requested search data as well.
Judges who disagreed with Rao stated that prosecutors should have sought information through more traditional means and that Twitter shouldn?t have been restricted from informing Trump of its warrant.
The court ruled that Twitter was in violation of the Seventh Amendment
Courts have ordered Twitter (now rebranded to “X”) to comply with both a search warrant and nondisclosure order issued against former President Barack Obama’s private tweets without informing Donald Trump himself of this fact. This enables prosecutors to gain access to them.
Neomi Rao, one of Trump’s appointees to the bench, and other dissident judges argued that “judicial disregard of executive privilege undermines the Presidency.” They requested an en banc review; however, the full appeals court ultimately decided against further reviewing this matter.
The court ruled that Twitter was in violation of the Eighth Amendment
Twitter (now known as X) filed an appeal of a ruling that gave special counsel Jack Smith access to former President Donald Trump’s account in connection with an investigation into whether Trump attempted to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power following 2020 election. The warrant issued was part of this probe into possible attempts by him to disrupt peaceful transfer.
Twitter had previously refused to comply with a search warrant issued against President Donald Trump, arguing that doing so would jeopardize their investigation by giving Trump the chance to destroy evidence or notify his allies about any investigations underway.
The court ruled that Twitter was in violation of the Ninth Amendment
This ruling, which includes sealed information, marks the latest development in an ongoing legal dispute between Twitter and the Justice Department. Twitter (now known as X) has resisted an application by Justice for access to records related to Donald Trump’s account.
The search warrant requested information on tweets created or drafted by Trump as well as users who interacted with the former president. Although Twitter attempted to challenge the warrant, the court upheld its validity.
The court ruled that Twitter was in violation of the Tenth Amendment
After federal prosecutors gained access to former president’s tweets through Twitter’s API, a court found it to be violating the Tenth Amendment and ruling was seen as a setback for X, the company that once went by that name.
Prosecutors obtained 32 direct messages from former President Donald Trump’s Twitter account as part of an investigation into his alleged attempts to prevent a peaceful transfer of power after 2020’s election. These direct messages were obtained pursuant to a search warrant issued by a district court.
To know more about recent developments, visit our Alts news website. Thankyou!
- Friday Intraday Trading Sees Nvidia’s stock Market Cap Momentarily Cross $2 Trillion
- Trump’s January 6 Civil Cases Proceed While Criminal Case Is Halted
- Trump Delivers Speech at the Columbia Black Conservative Federation Gala
- Trump Declares Strong Support for IVF Following Alabama Supreme Court Decision
- Schumer in Ukraine Declares US Backing During House Aid Standoff