Elon Musk’s Twitter Wanted to Tell Trump About a Sealed Search Warrant and Potentially F–k Up Jack Smith’s Criminal Investigation

Last November, Elon Musk did Donald Trump a very big solid when he lifted the Twitter ban that was imposed on the ex-president in January 2021 for the violence he’d incited. Sure, Trump has not actually returned to the site in the months since, preferring instead to unload his thoughts on Truth Social, the social network he founded after being kicked off of Twitter, but the gesture was still there. And as it turns out, Musk’s Twitter tried to do Trump an even bigger favor shortly thereafter.

A court ruling unsealed on Wednesday revealed that Twitter—now called X— was forced to pay a $350,000 fine after it failed to comply in a timely manner with a search warrant ordering it to turn over records from Trump’s account. According to The Washington Post, while attorneys for the company did not generally oppose Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request, they argued against the gag order it came with, which prevented them from alerting Trump. Claiming that handing over the records without telling Trump was a violation of the First Amendment, the company argued in court that it should not have to turn over anything until the gag order issue was settled. On February 7, US district court judge Beryl Howell found Twitter in contempt and gave the company until 5 p.m. that day to turn over the records in question, fining it $50,000 per day, doubling each day it failed to do so. (The company turned over the information three days later.)

Of course, Jack Smith had a good reason for not wanting Twitter to get on the horn and let Trump know it had turned information over to the government, and it’s probably that he was in the middle of his criminal investigation and likely didn’t trust that the former guy wouldn’t do something crazy and/or illegal as a result. Indeed, Judge Howell ruled in March to uphold the nondisclosure order, finding there were “reasonable grounds to believe” that disclosing the warrant to the ex-president “would seriously jeopardize the ongoing investigation” by giving him “an opportunity to destroy evidence, change patterns of behavior, [or] notify confederates.” Howell also noted that Trump might “flee from prosecution.” Twitter appealed her decision to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which upheld Howell’s ruling in July. Since Trump was formally charged on August 1 in the 2020 election case, the appellate court’s decision was unsealed.

While we don’t know exactly which records Jack Smith’s team was seeking, the grand jury indictment against him gives a pretty good idea, as it cites 18 of his tweets, with seven from the day of the insurrection, as the Post notes. Speaking of social media missives from the ex-president, on Friday he wrote on Truth Social “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!,” which prosecutors took to mean he intends to intimidate government witnesses.

Texas governor Greg Abbott wonders how he can top no water breaks law, comes up with:

Meanwhile, in Florida

The governor’s war on reality continues, per The Washington Post:

Large school districts across Florida are dropping plans to offer Advanced Placement Psychology, heeding a warning from state officials that the course’s discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity violates state law. Seven of the 11 districts with the largest enrollments in the class are switching to alternate courses, with four saying they will stick with AP Psychology.

The state of Florida has encouraged schools to teach the course without material about sexual orientation and gender identity. But the College Board, which runs AP, says those topics are central to the study of psychology and cannot simply be excised. Last week, the College Board said the course was “effectively banned” and advised districts not to offer it. Further complicating the matter, a day later, Florida’s education chief told districts that his agency believes the schools can offer the course “in its entirety” but also said it should be “in a manner that is age and developmentally appropriate.” The state has previously said teaching school-age students about sexual orientation and gender is inappropriate.