Today at 10am ET, U.S. District Judge Tanya #Chutkan will preside over her first hearing in the election interference case — and decide whether to limit what #Trump can reveal to the public about government evidence. #legal#TrumpIndictment 1/… 🪡
The #warrant, obtained in Jan, adds a new dimension to the scope of the federal inquiry into #Jan6, 2021.
The court papers, which emerged from an appeal by Twitter challenging the judge’s decision to issue the warrant, did not reveal what prosecutors were looking for….
A federal #court of #appeals upheld that #fine last month in a sealed opinion. On Wed, the court unsealed a redacted version of that #opinion, revealing details of the secret battle for the first time.
“Although #Twitter ultimately complied w/the #warrant, the company did not fully produce the requested information until 3 days after a #court-ordered deadline,” acc/to the 34-p opinion by a 3-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. “The district court thus held Twitter in contempt & imposed a $350,000 sanction for its delay.”
“Based on ex parte #affidavits, the district #court found #ProbableCause to search the #Twitter account for #evidence of #criminal offenses. Moreover, the district court found that there were ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ that disclosing the warrant to… #Trump ‘would seriously jeopardize the ongoing investigation’ by giving him ‘an opportunity to #DestroyEvidence, change patterns of behavior, [or] notify confederates,’” the #AppealsCourt noted.
Finally, on Feb 1, 4 days after the production deadline, #Twitter raised a #legal objection to the #nondisclosure order.
“Although the company did not question the validity of the #SearchWarrant, it asserted that the nondisclosure order was facially invalid under the First Amendment,“ Pan noted. “Twitter informed the govt that it would not #comply w/the #warrant until the district #court assessed the legality of the nondisclosure order.”