Anons. When Dersh goes on the talk-shows and takes sides AGAINST violating atty-client privilege by using info obtained by raiding POTUS' lawyer… he puts (((them))) in a legal bind.
If (((they))) want to try to make a legal argument justifying their raid, then Dersh can turn around and say, "Okay, if it's legally possible for you guys to come up with a 'good reason' to blow privilege off, then I guess I can use that exact same justification to blow privilege off with MY clients too."
What can (((they))) respond to that? Do they want to use whatever legal shit they got in their raid? If so, they'll also get Dersh talking about his client Epstein. If they want to insist that they were justified…Dersh can insist too. Two can play this game.
As Q said in #1121, "Actions today [raid] will be met w/ swift action." Dersh came out swinging.