That's a helluva chain of events: a local newspaper (established 1869, so an actual, real, respectable, local, completely independent and not corporately-owned paper) shows up to a restaurant where the local Congresscritter is holding an open forum. The owner of the restaurant kicks the reporters out (sounds like there's backstory there, but this article doesn't cover it). The reporters write a story about why they didn't cover the event. Enraged by the article, the restaurant owner attacks the newspaper owner on Facebook.

At this point, a person unknown (but suspected to be the restaurant owner's husband, who had filed for divorce) sent in evidence that the restaurant owner had a DUI conviction and had been driving without a license. If this information becomes public, it will endanger the restaurant owner's ability to get a liquor license.

The newspaper verifies the story is true but suspects they're being set up so they don't publish the story but tell the cops instead. The cops tell the restaurant owner, who publicly bitches about this in an open city council meeting, but gets the facts wrong. The newspaper prints a story correcting the facts.

The very next day, the entire police department and two sheriff's deputies show up with a search warrant - except federal law mandates that you can't use a search warrant on a newspaper, you have to use a subpoena. And the search warrant claims the crime is "identity theft", which is not what happened here. So the local judge signed off on an illegal search warrant, and the local cops used it to seize every electronic in the newspapers offices, every electronic in the newspaper owner's home, and the reporters' cellphones.

This illegal raid is covered by other news outlets. The restaurant owner then goes on Facebook again, admits to the DUI, admits to knowingly driving without a license "out of necessity", and says

"Journalists have become the dirty politicians of today, twisting narrative for bias agendas, full of muddied half-truths. [...] We rarely get facts that aren’t baited with misleading insinuations. [...] [The] entire debacle was brought forth in an attempt to smear my name, jeopardize my licensing through ABC [...], harm my business, seek retaliation, and for personal leverage in an ongoing domestic court battle."

Which, y'know, may or may not be true but completely ignores the fact that the newspaper didn't print the original 'revoked license' story in the first place, and that this entire chain of events could've been avoided if she hadn't: (1) driven drunk, (2) repeatedly driven without a license, (3) kicked the reporters out of the public meeting at her restaurant, (4) bitched about the unpublished story in an open city council meeting, and (5) lied to the local authorities about non-existent "identity theft" in order to get an illegal search warrant. Oh, and dragged the local newspaper into her family's divorce proceedings, despite them trying to stay out of it.

Oh, and since the cops seized all the newspapers' electronics, they don't know how they're going to publish the next edition. :(