[tptacek]

Obviously she's "a part of the warrant". It's her house. I don't know what "Clash Daily" is; I read the original source, which you provided. It comported with what I'd already read about the case, which is that Taylor wasn't the target of the investigation. See also the NYT's coverage, asserting that Jamarcus Glover was the target.

[windexh8er]

They explicitly call out her car being at a different address, not her own, in the warrant. This implicates her with the other two. She is clearly a target of the warrant. You can find validation of this in the warrant and the follow on reports done by the police department. At this point you're pushing a false narrative pretty hard.

[tptacek]

She's a target of the warrant. It's her house. Glover was using her car. Of course she's a target of the warrant. Her guilt or innocence in drug trafficking had nothing to do with the warrant's issuance. She's not the target of the investigation. If I'd been renting a room in her house, I'd be a target of the warrant too.

[windexh8er]

Sorry, but she was the soft target of the investigation. As you (hopefully) know her house was only one of the warrants executed on that day.

From NPR: "The purpose of the raid on Taylor's home was to find evidence linking her to an ex-boyfriend, Jamarcus Glover, a convicted felon with a history of drug trafficking, according to court documents.

Police didn't find any.

Now it appears prosecutors attempted to tie Taylor to a life of crime after her death." [0]

Now color me sceptical, but that appears to be an interesting argument if she's not a target as you continue to incorrectly posit.

Please top spreading misinformation.

[0] https://www.npr.org/2020/09/02/908625259/prosecutors-plea-of...

[tptacek]

Your own quote refutes the rest of your comment.