Supporters of former President Donald Trump are rightfully mad after discovering that the Biden administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) demanded to look into the former president’s then-Twitter account as part of the January 6 investigations.
According to reports, special counsel Jack Smith requested access to Trump’s search history on the now-X social media platform, as well as his drafted posts, blocks, and mutes, as part of his investigation into the events that led up to the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021.
“All information from the ‘Connect’ or ‘Notifications’ tab for the account, including all lists of Twitter users who have favorited or retweeted tweets posted by the account, as well as all tweets that include the username associated with the account (i.e. ‘mentions’ or ‘replies’),” Smith’s warrant states.
Heavily redacted court filings reveal that the warrant also sought information on users’ interactions with Trump and a list of all devices used to log into the account.
As expected, free speech advocates were furious over the DOJ’s demand, with many calling it a violation of Trump’s First Amendment rights.
“As part of his war on Trump, Jack Smith collected info on any American who retweeted or favorited Trump tweets. This is such a dystopic nightmare, as is the way it’s calmly accepted by so much of the country,” said Fox News contributor Mollie Ziegler Hemingway.
“This is a huge breach on our privacy, this is no longer democracy but an authoritarian dictatorship,” one user wrote on X. “There is an all out assault on free speech and American rights and ideals,” another one posted.
Following the revelation in August that Smith had requested the warrant in January, media organizations filed a lawsuit demanding that certain parts of the special counsel’s investigation be made public for transparency reasons. The DOJ has since released several documents, including the search warrant.
Unsealed records show that the X company first objected to the search warrant, claiming the nondisclosure order that kept it confidential. The company obliged, but after missing a deadline set by the court by three days, it was found in contempt of court and fined $350,000.
