Cohen will flip like a pancake.

Looking literally at Cohen's and Trump's statements in that regard, there is not an inherent contradiction.

Trump and the Trump organization do indeed have a very large volume of legal work. Fundamentally, that's what the real estate and licensing business is - dealing with contracts, leases, sales, etc.. For Trump to assert that Cohen has a "tiny fraction" of Trump's legal work is not a statement that Trump's business is a "tiny fraction" of Cohen's legal work.

To put it another way, one person on an auto assembly line does a "tiny fraction" of the assembly work of the plant, but it keeps that person busy 40 hours a week.

It was a dumb statement to make, but it does not inherently contradict Cohen's claim.

Cohen's claim is likely false anyway, but this statement is not the silver bullet it's made out to be - as if Trump said "my work is a tiny fraction of Cohen's legal work". It is certainly amusing, though.

"but it does not inherently contradict Cohen's claim..."

Which is why we are presented with the implicit qualifier "suggests," rather than "prove."

...regardless of what Trump or Hannity's out of court statements might suggest.

Hannity, for example, is certainly under no obligation to be truthful about the extent or lack thereof, of Cohen's legal work (if any) for him, in tweets, his radio show, or on the TV machine.

At the end of the day, any of the communications are either privileged or not privileged, and the court has appointed a special master to sort that out.

Still, it's a chuckle.

There are, of course, competing OMG's about the special master, in keeping with the general opinion that judges or court-appointed officers tend to base their professional duties on pure id. There is the "OMG, she was a partner in Bracewell, which used to be Bracewell & Giuliani!!!" on the proposition that every lawyer in a 400 member firm has some sort of undying fealty to a former name partner. Then there is the competing "OMG, Clinton nominated her to the bench!!!!" thing, as if, again, there is some eternal loyalty due as a result of that. Honestly, I continue to be surprised by the prevalence of the belief that everyone in the legal profession operates on Trump's level.

Finally, I think it is important to bear in mind that this was an extraordinary warrant, requiring a high level of probable cause, and requiring specificity as to the redacted offense for which evidence was believed to exist. That evidence is either going to be in what was collected or not, and is, by definition, not going to be privileged.

What will be interesting to see is whether Cohen's work "running his business" had a pattern of meshing well with Trump "running his business".

It might be a small portion of the total legal work, because the Trump Organization employs a shit-ton of lawyers. But Cohen handled all the stuff the other lawyers won't touch, like a "fixer" would do. All the NDA's, payoffs, threats, etc. He knows where the bodies are buried.

But if he was doing that job correctly, then he should not have been generating a lot of client correspondence.