The court document at issue is a denial of a motion for rehearing
en banc. The eleven members of the full court denied the motion, without a request by any of the judges for a vote. The four judges did not even dissent; they merely issued a statement:
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/ ... 035679.pdf
The reason that there was no dissent is that Trump had not intervened to raise an executive privilege claim. ("The options at this juncture are limited. Once informed of the search, President Trump could have intervened to protect claims of executive privilege, but did not, and so these issues are not properly before the
en banc court.")
The statement takes the position that, because the execution of the warrant might result in the turnover of "executive privilege" material (without the holder of that privilege having an opportunity to contest the turnover in court), the Special Counsel and the District Court should have acted less precipitously.
since when is Twitter content subject by the Presidential Records Act? The reason Jack Smith needed the Twitter archives was cauuse the tfg account had been taken down, else all would be open for reading, at least the public stuff. To prove chain of custody he of course needed the archived content for court. I guess that also gives access to DM private conversation threads.
