Hacker News Reader

Well I think they were saying that (1) internally at Twitter there were millions of references to the realDonaldTrump account in slack/email (plausible) and (2) there were a ton of external communications about the account which were probably not material to this request.

View on HN

They're deliberately playing dumb, though, in a way that was probably pretty transparent to the judge.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/15/special-counsel-obt...

That conversation refers to:

> Among the data the search warrant commanded Twitter to produce: Accounts associated with @realdonaldtrump that the former president might have used in the same device.

They know that doesn't mean "anyone who @mentioned him publicly".

This is not true. "Millions of emails" was in reference to this part of the warrant:

"Communications between Twitter and any person regarding the account including contacts with support services and records of actions taken"

A public @mention of Trump by a random person is not a "communication between Twitter [and that person] regarding the [@realDonaldTrump] account" by any sane reading.

That item means they have to hand over things like support tickets or emails sent to the @realDonaldTrump account or Trump's social media team.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com