Yes there is because that is what the evidence is hidden in. The prosecutors knew that- it is blindingly evident- and had rules to limit their looking at those privileged documents All that is in dispute is what rules should be.
All search warrents spell out the items, place and persons to be searched. The presence of other individuals or items in the area does not preclude searches from ever laying eyes on them. They simply can't rifle through them.
When the searcher found $90,000 in cash inside a freezer, it is blindingly evident that that was not "legislative material".
Exactly, and the judge and prosecutors did put restrictions in the warrant to protect the undoubtedly privileged material they knew they'd have to search through.
Hastert is just saying that those restrictions weren't sufficient for the privilege. Nothing else is in dispute.
As to the extent of the Privilege in this dispute, even under the historical view that it is mostly up to the Legislature to decide what they are the Legislature is not free to make unreasonable assertions of privilege because they will put themselves in the disdain of the voters by doing so and lose their seats.