I don't recall if this has been mentioned already...
Yet another interesting aspect of the search warrant being served at Mar-A-Lago is that while warrants are very specific about what is being sought, investigators are legally allowed to collect evidence of other criminal conduct if found within the search parameters of the original warrant. While I am far from any legal training, I can surmise this means that within the specified locations of search, while collecting the evidence of Crime A, they can collect evidence of Crime B (etc.).
Considering they had an informant disclosing the specific locations of interest and what they should reasonably [likely] expect to find, it is not outside the realm of possibility that other information was not collected.
Of course, all such seized material is catalogued with lists being delivered to the person served (reportedly Trump's council on-site), as well as the Judge who approved the warrant in the first place.
It could in fact be severely damaging for Trump to release the information contained in the warrant; something he legally can do if he chooses. While many have brought this up, it clearly will not serve Trump's narrative and the 'righteous' indignation he is using to rally his core and satellite followers.
It is almost too obvious to state, but the fact he has most obviously committed criminal acts throughout his life, including his time as sitting President of the US, continues to bear no weight with any of his supporters, including seemingly 98% of the elected members of Congress.
As I stated yesterday, I don't believe the Founders, in drafting the constitution, ever would have thought that such a person as Trump could even be considered by the populace as a potential President. While corruption at the highest levels of government were known to all, perhaps the fatal flaw was that they didn't specifically detail a list of things that should disqualify a person from holding federal office... such as being a convicted felon, or perhaps even being under indictment for potentially committing such a crime.
Taking that point a step further, it may preclude a person from being elected until such a time as they are cleared of wrongdoing, at which point they would be able to seek office again after being cleared of any charges.
It strikes me as ridiculous that the general populace has become so morally inept as to think that a person like Trump should hold any office whatsoever.
Not that I am a paragon of morality myself, but there are limits to what even I am willing to consider proper.
