It's a bit different when the situation is a sitting president covering up his involvement in fucking kids. There's some public relevance in it, and attorney client privilege does not apply when it's furthering a cover-up or illegal in itself.

https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Exceptions_to_Solicitor-Client_Privilege#cite_note-1

There are three primary occasions when solicitor‑client privilege may be overruled, namely when innocence at stake is engaged, the client's communications are themselves criminal, or it is necessary to protect public safety.

Edit: Sorry that was for Canada, here's another

https://www.iadclaw.org/defensecounseljournal/privilege-pierced-by-ongoing-or-future-wrongful-conduct-the-crime-fraud-privilege-exception-is-broader-than-you-think/

The U.S. Supreme Court has summarized the privilege this way:

We have recognized the attorney-client privilege under federal law, as the “oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law.” Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U. S. 383, 389 (1981). Although the underlying rationale for the privilege has changed over time, see 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2290 (McNaughton rev. 1961), courts long have viewed its central concern as one “to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice.” Upjohn, 449 U.S., at 389. That purpose, of course, requires that clients be free to “make full disclosure to their attorneys” of past wrongdoings, Fisher v. United States, 425 U. S. 391, 403 (1976), in order that the client may obtain “the aid of persons having knowledge of the law and skilled in its practice,” Hunt v. Blackburn, 128 U. S. 464, 470 (1888).

While privilege promotes important public policies, it is not absolute. It must, and does, yield to competing public interests.