DOJ gathered info on Americans engaging with Trump tweets: Report

The Department‌ of Justice’s Orwellian‌ Nightmare: Massive ⁤Data Collection on Trump Supporters

The Department‌ of Justice has come under fire ⁣for its extensive data collection on individuals⁤ who interacted with​ Donald Trump’s Twitter ⁣account, including those who liked, followed, or retweeted his posts. This alarming revelation has sparked concerns about privacy and the violation of constitutional rights.

Special Counsel Jack Smith,⁣ in his investigation into Trump’s alleged interference in the 2020 presidential election‍ and the events leading up to the Capitol breach, obtained a search warrant against Twitter. The warrant, released‌ on Monday after media outlets filed a lawsuit, revealed the staggering amount of data ⁤collected from October 2020 to⁢ January 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’),” the warrant reads.

American citizens have described the 14-page document, half‌ of⁣ which is redacted, as​ an Orwellian nightmare and a blatant breach of privacy. The warrant also sought access to Trump’s search history, drafted posts, blocks, mutes, direct messages, and a list of devices used to access ⁣the account.

“The content of all direct‌ messages sent from, received by, stored in draft form in, ‌or otherwise associated” with‍ the former president’s account, and the users Trump “has followed, ​unfollowed, muted, unmuted, blocked,⁤ or unblocked, and all users ​who have‍ followed, unfollowed, muted, unmuted,⁣ blocked, or unblocked,” the search warrant lists.

The search warrant reportedly included a nondisclosure order that prevented Twitter from informing Trump about the investigation. The company initially challenged ⁣the​ order, arguing ⁤that it ‌violated the First Amendment and the Stored Communications Act, but ultimately faced a $350,000 fine for ⁣the delay.

In another heavily redacted document, the Justice Department justified the nondisclosure order, stating that notifying Trump would jeopardize the investigation and potentially lead to the ⁤destruction of evidence or intimidation of witnesses.

Twitter’s motion to vacate or ⁣modify the order was unprecedented, ⁤according to Special Counsel Jack Smith, ⁣who argued that notifying Trump, a⁢ powerful figure with a vast platform, would cause harm to⁤ the investigation.

Trump, who has been ​indicted on multiple felony⁣ charges related to his alleged ⁢efforts to overturn the 2020 ‍election, including conspiracy and obstruction, ⁣has pleaded not guilty.‌ He expressed his outrage on his Truth Social account, criticizing the special counsel for accessing his⁣ former Twitter account without his knowledge.

“How dare lowlife prosecutor, Deranged Jack Smith, break into my former Twitter account without informing me‍ and, indeed, trying to completely hide this atrocity from me,” Trump said. “What could he possibly find out‍ that is not already ‌known.”

This unprecedented data collection and breach of privacy have raised serious ‌concerns about the⁢ extent of government surveillance and the erosion of individual ‍rights.⁣ The implications of this case extend far ⁣beyond Trump’s Twitter account, highlighting the need for greater transparency ‌and protection of privacy in the ⁣digital age.

CLICK HERE TO ‌GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP

How does the targeting of individuals based ​on their political beliefs ​and association with a ‌public figure impact the principles⁢ of free speech and expression in a democratic society

M⁣ disclosing the‌ existence of the warrant ​or the data​ collection to ⁤anyone, including the⁣ affected individuals. This raises further concerns about transparency and the potential for abuse of power.

The‌ Department‌ of Justice’s justification for this extensive data collection is to gather evidence for⁤ the investigation into the alleged interference in the 2020 presidential election and the events at the Capitol. However, many‍ argue that the scope of ⁢the warrant goes far beyond what is necessary for the investigation, and it casts a wide net over anyone who interacted with Trump’s Twitter account, regardless of‍ their involvement in​ any illegal activities.

This level of data collection and surveillance on American ‍citizens raises serious questions about privacy rights and the protection of constitutional freedoms. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring law enforcement to‍ obtain a ⁢warrant based on probable ​cause.⁢ However, the breadth and depth⁢ of data collected in this⁢ case suggest a clear overreach ⁣of ​governmental power.

Furthermore, the targeting of individuals based ​on their political beliefs and association with a specific public figure is deeply concerning. It undermines the principles of free speech⁣ and expression that are fundamental to a democratic society. Citizens should not have to fear that their online activities⁢ will be monitored and potentially used against them simply‍ because of their political affiliations‌ or support for a particular individual.

This disturbing⁣ revelation ​also highlights the need for more robust safeguards and oversight mechanisms to prevent abuses of power. While investigations into​ potential wrongdoing‍ are important, they should be conducted within the boundaries ⁤of the ‍law ​and with respect for individuals’ rights. A balance must be ⁤struck between the ⁣need for security and the preservation of civil liberties.

Furthermore, this incident brings forth the urgent need for comprehensive data privacy legislation that protects individuals ​from excessive and intrusive data collection. The rapid advancements in technology have given government agencies ⁣unprecedented access to personal information, making it essential to establish clear guidelines and limitations on data gathering and storage.

In conclusion, ⁤the Department‌ of Justice’s massive data collection on Trump supporters, as revealed in the recently released search warrant, raises serious privacy concerns and questions about the violation of constitutional rights. The scope of the data collected and the targeting of ‍individuals based on their political beliefs ⁣are deeply ⁤troubling and threaten the fundamental principles of‍ a democratic society. This ⁣incident ​underscores the importance of stronger oversight,‌ transparency, and the need for comprehensive data privacy legislation to⁤ protect individuals from unwarranted intrusion into their lives.