I'm going to preface this by saying I used to both work in and later run a computer repair shop (currently still work with computers but focus more on business IT so I don't see much personal stuff these days).
Something I found kinda weird about the NYPost story and Rudy Giuliani's message today was that the computer repair shop turned the laptop over to the FBI. Having worked in that exact industry, we don't just turn laptops over to the FBI because there's some raunchy photos on it. Drugs? If it's turned over at all it'd be to the local police and they take it from there. Prostitution? Same thing. Just about everything else is "none of our business" and we don't "see" anything.
There is, however, one case where we are, in fact, required by law to report and turn over a computer/hard drive/device to the FBI (if we didn't we could get in big trouble): Child Porn.
Now I'm not going to pretend I know what's all on that laptop. Hell, I'm still not quite 100% sure it's even real (although the photos we've seen today make a pretty strong case). But the fact it was turned over to the FBI, and then we see Giuliani state there are illegal things on it, definitely makes you wonder if we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg here.
It's possible they found government documents marked classified, or even personal info related to the Bidens.
But Oscar's razor is that the reason they notified the FBI is there was illegal content, not simply classified content.
Stuff like that isn't typically going to be reported. It falls under the "I see nothing" umbrella.
If CP is the case Wray will probably go after Giuliani and the shopkeeper for possessing it
That's exactly why shops are required to report it. If they don't, they can be charged with possession and possibly distribution if they give it back to the customer with the CP still on it (even though it came from the customer in the first place).
I mean the fact that the hard drive was copied now
Occam's razor is based on how many assumptions you must make to choose one conclusion over another.
It would not be an assumption finding classified information on an individuals personal computer to be a crime. A crime must have been committed for classified info to reside on a persons personal computer.
Rudy's comments about images brings a lot of possible assumptions. Many more about the illegal activities possible with images than with classified docs on a personal computer.
I don't think we currently have enough information to make any judgements or conclusions on this until we can see what's in the docs/images.