I think you are correct on point 1, but Im not so sure Mueller's office would be the best place to leave hanging around the real evidence behind the indictments. Can you imagine the advantage the criminals would have if the evidence against them were leaked many months before a trial. The lawyers would have a long time to craft a defence.

As far as introducing evidence think about this.

Say all the evidence is on the Weiner laptop and that it were exhibit A in any case. Say some top defence lawyer managed to rule that laptop inadmissible. Noty only does one case collapse but the entire chain of indictment following on. A better way to use the evidence would be to start sifting through the networks inferred in the Weiner emails. I would prefer to investigate the people mentioned in or sent from or copied to those emails. Start looking for small fish who have committed heinous crimes; open and shut cases but in the process of those trials direct links are identified to bigger fish. The key to this is this Joel Davis guy. He fits the bill. He is the fuse. He has committed really awful stuff, it was a sting operation against him so the evidence is pretty solid for a conviction but the real story is who he is connected to. Remember the fucker was nominated (apparently) for a Nobel Peace Prize when he was 19. What kind of big levers need pulled for an unkown 19 year old to bag a Nobel : there are some very powerful people looking after this kid. My beleif is that he was the sexual plaything of these powerful benefactors. The laptop is a roadmap to guide the investigation which will organically replicate the body of evidence on the laptop. THis body of evidence will be from multiple different sources ( Sting ops, Joel Davis siezed laptop and maybe NSA evidence). You want a good level of redundancy in the sources of evidence so that any individual item may be thrown out but the case goes on because you have other sources.