What I always find interesting whenever someone tries to dismiss something as conspiracy theory. It is such a perfect combination of words. Naturally, these days, it came to mean "you can ignore this". I would like you think about it for a little bit Gbaji, and then tell me who programmed you to ignore things that are in plain sight for everyone to see.
Life experience has taught me to have this filter in my brain that allows me to dismiss things that are absurd as things that are absurd. This allows me to spend time thinking about things that actually matter are relevant and are fixable. Because of this, I'm able to read a story that really is about a relatively normal set of events and instead of imagining a ridiculous series of sinister events in order to justify assuming there must be a sinister motive behind it all, I can just say "yeah. that looks like a normal sequence of events" and then move on.
See. In order for me to buy a conspiracy in this case, someone would have to at least make an effort to explain to me that the raid was unjustified in some way (which the article completely fails to do). Because absent such a lack of justification, then this become just some papers that were seized along with a bunch of other stuff during a legitimate/legal raid. I have no real issue with that at all. Perhaps, if she didn't want her super secret journalist data to be obtained by the government, she should not have been keeping them in a home she shared with someone who apparently was violating some gun laws. It would be like me complaining that the police took possession of my address book when they raided my home because my roommate was selling meth.
If there was no roommate selling meth out of my home, and the raid was obviously complete BS, then maybe I could sell the story that they faked the raid just to get their hands on my valuable address book. But if I fail to make that claim, it's hard to make that story convincing, isn't it? Same deal here.