Oh, goodness. There seems to be wild misunderstanding about what "discovery" is. For a judge to grant discovery motions, litigants (or defendants in this instance) must establish foundation for such discovery. What foundation could the defendants possibly establish for a judge to grant a search of Landrieu's records? Zip, nada, nothing, as there's no possible nexus between a defense of what they were doing and what the Senator is doing.
It's not an allowable affirmative defense to say that you've illegally attempted to wire-tap someone's office because you believe that particular someone might be engaged in criminal activity. Any criminal activity on the part of the victim would be immaterial to the court.
Let me use this example - a burglary suspect can't say to the judge, "Hey, let me see the victim's tax returns". It's not going to be granted unless the burglary suspect can establish some legitimate reason to have access to that information - IOW, he must be able to demonstrate how that information can benefit his defense.
There are no records worth looking at in that location. Besides, most of her stuff is in electronic format. It all looks like political street theater anyway.
Maybe they aren’t looking for what’s in the office, but the process by which they were arrested?
Is there a back-door way to view FBI/DOJ records seeking a basis for consistency in the application of laws?
As you can undoubtedly tell, I’m no attorney. [Although I did bust my professors case law example when I ferreted out obscure case law to prove my point.] So I keep digging as I refuse to believe that:
A) O’Keefe is stupid and/or
B) He willingly broke the law
Thus, IMO, there is a ‘C’. We just don’t know what it is. Come on, Old Deck Hand. Get creative, what could it be???