Sorry, but this is just one sided reporting, with ALL the important facts intentionally omitted. When you insert the facts, there really isn't even a story here.
Here's what you didn't know. Her hubby (Paul Flanagan) is in the US Coast Guard, and serves as an ordnance technician. Some years ago (1986), he was found guilty of a felony, and lost the right to own/possess a firearm. For the past few years however, he has been bragging at his unit as well as Facebook about his "gun collection" including machine guns and semi-automatic assault rifles. Even showed some pictures. That caught the attention of the ATF. Legally, he shouldn't have owned anything. The fact he works in ordnance (weapons, ammunition and explosives) for the Coast Guard, just makes it worse. What does he really have, and how did he get it? So that's why the warrant.
Her files have also been explained. Had they not noticed "FOUO" (For Official Use Only) and "LES" (Law Enforcement Sensitive) on the documents, they would not have bothered with them. They do not need to ask how you got them, nor do they need your permission to take them. They do need to include them in the inventory of items taken on the search warrant, and they were.
Having seen the files in question, there is no way they knew what they actually contained, until they went through them later. Those things are a mess. But as stated, just seeing the above headings, is enough to grab all of them.
I also took note Hudson omitted the fact either she or her Husband had to sign that search warrant, before the Feds left. This means the warrant was served to you, and you acknowledge all items they leave with (inventory). The CG states the husband picked up the files, because they had to have him sign for them. The process is called chain-of-custody. The point is, she knew they took them.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/exclusive-feds-confiscate-investigative-reporters-confidential-files-during-raid/
