Victoria Taft points out something crystal clear from the beginning, the search warrant was for anything that Trump touched since becoming President. The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution says that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
A warrant that authorized police to seize anything I wrote, touched, or recorded since going to work, is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. But that's what the search warrant issued to raid Trump's home did.
Was this why the warrant was so vague and “overly broad”? How could a warrant that had under its aegis every piece of paper ever generated during Trump’s presidency not be overly broad? “Overly broad” is a legal term of art suggesting we are veering into unconstitutional territory. That’s a Fourth Amendment no-no and it goes to the very reason why patriots escaped to the colonies and declared their independence from the Crown.
Later, anti-Trump prosecutors showed atypical humility and admitted that, yes, they’d “over collected” documents such as Trump’s passports and privileged documents between Trump and his attorneys. This is no small thing. This is enough to get evidence and possibly the whole case thrown out by a judge. Fruits of the poisonous tree and all that. If agents had an appropriately tailored search warrant and had the judge bothered to look at the underlying documents, then privileged documents that were clearly out of the scope of the warrant wouldn’t have been confiscated. That is unless Trump and his attorneys were scoring crack, smoking meth, doing deals to get raw materials to make lithium batteries for the Chi-coms, and getting payoffs from the Ukrainians and Russkies. Wait, sorry, that’s Hunter Biden and The Big Guy.