That's actually not true, if it's public information, then you're free to grab it. See below:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/15/16148250/microsoft-linked...
By reverse engineering the API, sure they can shut you down, but a lawsuit? Hardly.
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=000...
The 5-minute spans around minute 20 and around minute 53 are particularly interesting. Even HiQ agrees that they have no right to ignore TOS terms pertaining to things behind login screens.
Er, since when? Auernheimer/weev was sentenced to 4 years for "hacking" AT&T by changing a URL parameter to access other customers' info. It was questioned in the appeal decision that let him go, but the ruling was on narrow (venue) grounds.
https://www.wired.com/2014/04/att-hacker-conviction-vacated/
Fines and jail sentences are things only the government can impose. I'm not talking about what the government might do to someone violating Twitter's user agreements (I doubt they'd do much).
The overall gist of your argument is really hard to understand. Twitter makes a service available conditioned on an agreement they have with their users. That agreement is binding. The legal issues here seem pretty straightforward.
It's possible that we're talking about different actors in this story. You might be thinking I'm saying Twitter is likely to sue individual users who use third-party clients. I don't think that will ever happen. On the other hand, if you're the kind of organization Twitter is describing in this bulletin, making potentially millions of dollars by abusing the Twitter APIs to spam or deceive users, I have no problem at all seeing how Twitter might seek recourse in civil court. It's their site, and access is conditioned on their rules.