What he's doing is misinterpreting this line from the warrant:
> "Your affiant was able to review the video that was taken off of Nicholas' Youtube and Rumble social media sites...."
https://imgur.com/a/rekieta-search-warrant-i98Vydo
Nick is pretending that line means "I watched the video ON Nick's social media sites." He contends that the cop misrepresented that he viewed the original video on Nick's channel, and that the cop did so intentionally to add veracity to the video. That is, he claims the cop thought: "
if I admit I watched this on a different channel the judge will never sign my warrant because we can't be sure the video hasn't been altered, so I'm going to lie and say I saw it directly on Nick's channel." Nick claims that's a material misrepresentation, and that the warrant is therefore invalid.
Of course, that's not at all what that line means. The "taken off of" language is an admission by the cop that he viewed the video on a channel that wasn't Nick's, and this interpretation is bolstered by his citing both Youtube and Rumble.
With the argument Nick is trying to make, it doesn't matter whether the clipped portion is accurate or not, as it's the lie that invalidates the warrant. It's a silly argument, but it's all he's got.