unlawful seizure of those materials would remove their use as evidence in any case against O'Keefe based on the raid. that's a 4th amendment right all US citizens have. the case afaik isn't coming in any case.

but you said the raid was illegal, which it wasn't afaik, because no false information was presented to the judge that signed the warrant for the raid.

was the raid justified? no. was the raid well carried out? likely not, if they took any information covered by attorney client privilege. was the basis for the raid legal, afaik yes. do i like JO, no, do i feel sad for him, no. should he have been raided for this specific diary, no.

perhaps at some point you'll realize that simply because i'm not addressing the part of your thread that you want addressed that doesnt mean we disagree. but if u let me keep catching fish with an empty hook i'll keep casting. i like predicting what plebs will do and being proven right.

What does "legal" mean in such a context?
When Eadweard Muybridge hunted down and killed his wife's lover, it was legal, heck same with OJ Simpson, but at least the jury in the latter case ostensibly wasn't deciding law. Nevermind comparisons to slavery or lynchings, more to the point that which can be declared 'legal' can also be explicitly illegal by their contemporary historical standards but still just given a free pass. We've got a first amendment in the constitution that should say such a raid should be illegal, a gross violation of the rights of a free press, carried out in obviously bad faith and borne of political animus. But we've got a judiciary willing to sign off on it with a wink and a nod.

the first amendment doesnt define legality of law enforcement and court proceeding legality, the fourth does. by vaguely stating that people deserve a fair trial, which led to a bevy of caselaw which have more clearly defined how law enforcement and judges can and cannot issue search warrants, after of course defining that warrants themselves are needed for evidence to be legally applied in court cases.

was this warrant application analogous to say the Steele Dossier and the FISA warrants? FISA warrants have been a conveniently used tool for cops to skirt the fourth amendment under the undefinable air of urgency that's hardly ever actually required. but was the same lack of oversight present in this case? i havent seen anything to suggest that. the most concerning detail seems to be whether Veritas was or was not held to the standard of a media organization during the entire investigation. not misconduct on the behalf of FBI and Judge in the warrant process afaik.

i'm no lover of the FBI, i'd be happy to be wrong if misconduct is uncovered. not that i expect it to lead to tightening of the warrant process that ive been calling for since the Steel FISA debacle.

is ashley biden on crack fucking whores as well?

The first amendment was killed when jsp suspended me for calling Obama the n-word.

nerd?

think that might mean nigger.

lol yeet'd himself

the democrats have a monopoly on on the overwhelming bulk of mainstream media however. that short circuits freedom of the press. the government needs to break up that monopoly.

Sometimes the trash takes itself out