Prosecutors working for Jack Smith, the special counsel who twice brought indictments against former President Donald J. Trump, obtained a search warrant earlier this year for the long-dormant Twitter account by Mr. Trump as part of their inquiry into his attempt to throw back the 2020 election, according to court papers unsealed Wednesday.
The warrant, signed by a federal judge in Washington in January after Elon Musk acquired Twitter, now called X, is the first known example of prosecutors looking directly into Mr. Trump and added a new dimension to the special counsel’s scope. efforts to investigate the former president.
The court papers, which emerged from a Twitter appeal challenging part of the judge’s decision to issue the warrant, did not reveal what prosecutors were looking for in Mr. Trump, which the tech company shut down nearly two years later. the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
But the papers indicate that prosecutors received permission from the judge not to tell Mr. Trump for months that they had obtained the warrant for his account. Prosecutors feared that if Mr. Trump learned about the warrant, it would “seriously jeopardize the ongoing investigation” by giving him “an opportunity to destroy evidence, change patterns of behavior. [or] notify the confederates,” the papers said.
Mr. responded quickly. Trump on the news about the warrant on his own social media site, Truth Social.
“I just found out that Crooked Joe Biden’s DOJ secretly attacked my Twitter account, making it a point not to let me know about this huge ‘hit’ to my civil rights,” he wrote. “My Political Opponent is CRAZY trying to undermine my Campaign for President.”
Having a warrant is Politico previously reported.
The fact that prosecutors quietly got a judge’s permission more than seven months ago to look at Mr. Trump’s Twitter account underscores how much of the special counsel’s work may have taken place out of sight. of the public. Much of the investigation into Mr. Trump’s efforts to maintain his grip on power and his other federal case — one related to his handling of classified materials — has been conducted before federal prosecutors. grand juries, which operate under strict rules of secrecy.
In the tumultuous period between the election and Jan. 6, Mr. Trump’s Twitter account was one of the nation’s most popular social media platforms, with millions of followers. Prosecutors who sought a warrant to search the account indicate they want specific company data or are interested in some non-public aspect of the account — though it remains unclear what that is.
As part of their wide-ranging investigation into election interference, prosecutors seized cellphones and other electronic equipment from some of Mr. Trump’s closest aides and lawyers. Trump. Those include at least two people identified as the former president’s co-conspirators in the indictment against him filed this month: John Eastman, a lawyer who advised Mr. Trump on a plan to force his vice president, Mike Pence, to throw the election his way during a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, and Jeffrey Clark, a Justice Department loyalist whom Mr. Trump has sought to install as acting attorney general.
The election cases filed against Mr. Trump is accusing him of three overlapping conspiracies to defraud the United States, to disrupt election certification in a trial at the Capitol on January 6, and to deprive people of the right to have their votes counted.
The incessant use of Mr. Trump’s Twitter has several times detailed the accusation.
The indictment records, for example, how Mr. Trump used Twitter on Dec. 19, 2020, to summon his followers to Washington on Jan. 6 for what he described as a “wild” protest. The message ultimately served as a lightning rod for both far-right extremists and ordinary Trump supporters who descended on the city that day, responding to Mr. Trump’s call.
The indictment also describes how Mr. Trump used Twitter before Jan. 6 to instill in his followers the “false hope” that Mr. Trump had authority. Pence to use his oversight role to continue certification in the Capitol “to overturn the outcome of the election” in Mr. Trump’s favor.
On Jan. 6 itself, Mr. Trump continued posting messages on Twitter that kept up this drumbeat of “knowingly false statements aimed at pressuring the vice president,” the indictment said. In the end, when Mr. refused. Pence bowing to pressure, Mr. Trump in another tweet blamed the vice president for not having “the courage to do what must be done to protect our country and our Constitution.”
A minute after the tweet was posted, the indictment said, Secret Service agents were forced to evacuate Mr. Pence in a safe location. And throughout that afternoon, it added, rioters roamed the Capitol and its grounds, chanting chants such as “Traitor Pence” and “Hang Mike Pence.”
Court papers disclosing the warrant for Mr. Trump emerged from the company’s efforts, under Mr. Musk, who challenged the nondisclosure provision that prohibits Twitter from telling Mr. Trump that it complies with the demands of the government.
There was a massive legal battle in Federal District Court in Washington this winter before Judge Beryl A. Howell between lawyers for Twitter and prosecutors from the Justice Department over the provision. In the end, Twitter not only lost the battle but was found in contempt of court and fined $350,000 for delaying compliance with the warrant.
Twitter then took the case to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which upheld the lower court’s decision and set aside its decision on Wednesday.
In its initial motion challenging the nondisclosure provision, Twitter tried to argue that prosecutors violated the company’s First Amendment rights by seeking to prevent officials from speaking with Mr. Trump, one of its customers.
The company also requested that the execution of the warrant be delayed until the issues surrounding the provision are resolved. Otherwise, it claims, Mr. Trump asserted executive privilege in a bid to “protect communications made using his Twitter account.”
Judge Howell ruled against the company, ruling that the warrant was “an unambiguous court order.” He also took Twitter to task for violating the deadline for responding to the warrant.
Prosecutors asked Judge Howell to impose penalties on Twitter, proposing fines that would “accumulate at a geometric rate,” court papers said, starting at $50,000 a day and doubling each day thereafter.
With a swipe at Mr. Musk, Judge Howell upheld that suggestion, “noting that Twitter has been sold for more than $40 billion and its owner’s net worth is more than $180 billion,” the papers said.
Twitter ultimately missed a second deadline for complying with the warrant but eventually provided the data demanded at 8:06 p.m. on February 9, the papers said.