Re. the raid of @realDonaldTrump att’y Cohen’s office: “Because the attorney-client privilege belongs to the client, the client’s intent determines whether the exception applies….”
— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) April 9, 2018
This question of attorney-client privilege turns on niceties, and I don’t know all the details, but I think this is generally correct. The client needs to be able to speak frankly with the lawyer, but communications in furtherance of a crime are not protected. The distinction can sometimes be subtle, but it’s important. As I heard some talking head or another explain it last night, you can tell your lawyer confidentially that you committed a murder, but the privilege evaporates when you try to enlist your lawyer’s help hiding the body.
To put it a bit differently — and, again, I’m a smart guy but not an expert — the privilege obtains for events in the past, but does not cover the contemplation of future unlawful conduct. So if Trump discussed past unlawful acts with Cohen, those conversations are protected. If Trump enlisted Cohen’s help committing unlawful acts, or merely informed him that he intended to commit an unlawful act, it’s not protected.
Sheesh, this is all getting Godfather-ish.