{"id":14164,"date":"2024-01-17T02:53:20","date_gmt":"2024-01-17T02:53:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/2024\/01\/17\/federal-appeals-court-rejects-petition-over-special-counsel-jack-smith-access-to-trumps-twitter-feed\/"},"modified":"2024-01-17T02:53:20","modified_gmt":"2024-01-17T02:53:20","slug":"federal-appeals-court-rejects-petition-over-special-counsel-jack-smith-access-to-trumps-twitter-feed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/2024\/01\/17\/federal-appeals-court-rejects-petition-over-special-counsel-jack-smith-access-to-trumps-twitter-feed\/","title":{"rendered":"Federal appeals court rejects petition over Special Counsel Jack Smith access to Trump\u2019s Twitter feed"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
Read this article for free!<\/div>\n
Plus get unlimited access to thousands of articles, videos and more with your free account!<\/div>\n
Please enter a valid email address.<\/span><\/div>\n
By entering your email, you are agreeing to Fox News Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the content, check your email and follow the instructions provided.\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

A federal appeals court has rejected a request to block Special Counsel Jack Smith from accessing former President Trump\u2019s then-Twitter feed as part of his election interference case.<\/p>\n

The U.S. Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C., ruled on the matter and denied further review. The decision comes after an appellate panel had rejected the original request.<\/p>\n

Twitter, now \u2018X,\u2019 had initiated the appeals, seeking to block special counsel access to the records the company held.<\/p>\n

Smith had noted he could have gotten the material from the National Archives, which gained the material after Trump left office, but that would have triggered notice to Trump, so a search warrant was requested through the company under seal and with a non-disclosure notice. That, in turn, prevented Trump from raising any executive privilege claims over the digital communications.<\/p>\n

The four conservative judges on the appeals court dissented and would have granted en banc review.<\/p>\n

Judge Rao, a Trump bench appointee, wrote a statement, saying the executive privilege claims should have been addressed.<\/p>\n

\u2018The absence of a presumptive privilege particularly threatens the Chief Executive when, as here, a third party holds presidential communications. See Mazars, 140 S. Ct. at 2035. And to be sure it aggrandizes the courts, which will have the power to determine whether executive privilege will be considered before its breach. Without a presumption for executive privilege, new questions will invariably arise, particularly because nothing in the panel\u2019s opinion is limited to a former President. What if, in the course of a criminal investigation, a special counsel sought a warrant for the incumbent President\u2019s communications from a private email or phone provider? Under this court\u2019s decision, executive privilege isn\u2019t even on the table, so long as the special counsel makes a showing that a warrant and nondisclosure order are necessary to the prosecution. And following the Special Counsel\u2019s roadmap, what would prevent a state prosecutor from using a search warrant and nondisclosure order to obtain presidential communications from a third-party messaging application? And how might Congress benefit from this precedent when it seeks to subpoena presidential materials from third parties in an investigation or impeachment inquiry?\u2019<\/p>\n

\u2018Upon consideration of appellant\u2019s petition for rehearing en banc, the response thereto, the amicus curiae brief filed by Electronic Frontier Foundation in support of rehearing en banc, and the absence of a request by any member of the court for a vote, it is ordered that the petition be denied,\u2019 the ruling states.<\/p>\n

The former president and 2024 GOP presidential front-runner can now ask the Supreme Court to review the matter.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Attorneys for the company, now named X Corp., attempted to block and delay the effort in January and February, leading one federal judge to speculate that X owner and one-time CEO Elon Musk was attempting to ally himself with Trump.<\/p>\n

The social media giant ultimately lost the struggle, however, and was forced to hand over an extensive list of data related to the \u2018@realdonaldtrump\u2019 account, including all tweets \u2018created, drafted, favorited\/liked, or retweeted.\u2019<\/p>\n

The handover also included searches on the platform surrounding the\u00a02020 election, devices used to log into the account, IP addresses used to log into the account, and a list of associated accounts.<\/p>\n

Smith plans to use data from the cellphone that Trump used in his final weeks in office, including data revealing when Trump\u2019s phone was \u2018unlocked and the Twitter application was open\u2019 on Jan. 6, 2021.<\/p>\n

Unsealed court filings in August showed that\u00a0Smith\u2019s team obtained\u00a0location data and draft tweets in addition to the former president\u2019s messages.
\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Read this article for free! Plus get unlimited access to thousands of articles, videos and more with your free account! Please enter a valid email address. By entering your email, you are agreeing to Fox News Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the content, check your <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":14165,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[25],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-14164","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-politics"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14164","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14164"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14164\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14165"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14164"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14164"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shareperformanceinsight.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}