WASHINGTON (CN) — A federal judge denied a request from media groups and X, formerly known as Twitter, on Wednesday to unseal additional records related to a search warrant obtained by special counsel Jack Smith for Donald Trump’s account on the X platform.
The warrant — part of Smith’s investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election in his favor that led to a federal indictment — was made public after court documents were unsealed on Aug. 9 and revealed prosecutors’ efforts in January 2022 to obtain access to Trump’s direct messages and deleted tweets.
X initially resisted turning over access, leading to a $350,000 fine and an admonishment from U.S District Judge Beryl Howell that new owner Elon Musk appeared to be trying to “cozy up” to the former president after he was invited back to the site.
Trump was suspended from X on Jan. 8, 2021, following his posts before, during and after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
The request was brought by a media coalition including The Associated Press, ABC News, Politico, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, USA Today, C-SPAN and more, in conjunction with X Corp.
Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled that hundreds of pages of documents — the warrant’s supporting affidavit, several exhibits from the government and redacted pages of partially unsealed documents — will remain under seal.
The Barack Obama appointee wrote in his opinion that while the case is one “of historic proportions with massive significance to the body politic,” the public interest is outweighed by the need to protect the details of Smith’s remaining investigation.
He noted an additional need to protect the privacy of those named in the search warrant, likely those Trump communicated with via direct message, as they have not been criminally charged but would essentially be linked to the charges brought against Trump.
While Trump was the only person charged in Smith’s August indictment, there were six unnamed co-conspirators. Based on descriptions in the indictment and media reporting, they seem to include Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro as well as former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark.
The identity of the sixth co-conspirator is not yet clear but was described in the indictment as a political consultant.
The five have since been charged in Fulton County, Georgia, for their roles in attempting to interfere in the 2020 presidential election in that state. Last month, both Powell and Chesebro took plea deals in the case, making them potential witnesses against the remaining defendants in Georgia, including Trump.
According to previously unsealed court documents, Smith did not notify Trump about the search warrant over concerns he would move to delete evidence and could lead to violence as it did following the FBI raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.
A special counsel reply brief unsealed in September revealed that Smith and his team pushed back against a Musk effort to notify Trump — based on an argument that a non-disclosure order imposed on the company violated its First Amendment rights to communicate with its users — and further rejecting a proposal to notify a “representative” who could generally warn Trump about the warrant.
When Smith did gain access to Trump’s account, he found “32 direct-message items” on his account.
Since being reinstated to X, Trump has only tweeted once, to post his mug shot taken in the Fulton County Jail in August with a link to his website. Otherwise, he has taken his posting habit to his own site, Truth Social, effectively an X clone.
In his opinion, Boasberg also rejected the idea of partially redacting the remaining documents and unsealing them, as redactions “are no silver bullet,” preferring to avoid a situation where the individuals can be identified by the remaining parts of the document.
He applied the six-step Hubbard test — a legal method to balance the interests of public access and private interests in a case — resulting in a mixed analysis for and against unsealing the documents. However, the need to protect the government’s ongoing investigation tipped the scales in the end against unsealing.
“There may yet come a time when press access becomes appropriate, but at present the application is a premature bid for sensitive information pertaining to an active investigation,” Boasberg wrote.
Follow @Ryan_Knappy
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
