Lawyer's view of Twitter "Hack" My 2 cents as a lawyer who works in and around criminal law... The "hacker" who broke in to those Twitter accounts had access to the DMs. If any evidence of illegal acts were found in those DMs, it would be difficult to use them in a criminal case because you would first have to authenticate them. Normally, when prosecutors get things like DMs, they get them by subpoenas to Twitter. When Twitter then provides those DMs in response to the subpoena, they authenticate them as being DMs from that person. Here, my guess is that any subpoena to Twitter would set off a huge siren to the deep state. In fact, if Twitter is part of the problem, they would probably publicly fight any subpoena, thus blowing up any stealth prosecution. So, if these accounts are "hacked," and the prosecutor wants to present the DMs retrieved from those accounts in court, said prosecutor would need to show that that "hacker" had access to the accounts. How do you do that? Twitter won't authenticate them. Well, whoever has sole control of that bitcoin address that was tweeted out from the accounts must have also had access to those accounts and thus the DMs. That "hacker" could then authenticate the DMs, thus making them admissible in court. Just my random conjecture for the day...