Dershowitz: Special Counsels Are Unconstitutional, I Hope Mueller Is The Last One


Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz and former deputy independent counsel Sol Wisenberg weigh in on House Judiciary Committee Chairman Nadler's threat to subpoena Robert Mueller to tetify:

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR EMERITUS: It's possible. But there's no legal right to Mueller's testimony. There's no legal right to any of the Mueller Report. Indeed, even though I wrote the introduction to the Mueller Report, the Mueller Report never should have been written. There's no room under our Constitution for special counsels, special prosecutors, reports. Prosecutors have the right to say only one thing. We have concluded that there's no evidence sufficient to charge the president with Russian collusion or obstruction of justice, period. I'm taking no questions, I'm making no public report. I'm giving my findings to the attorney general. No prosecutor should ever go beyond that.

We all agreed with that when Comey went beyond that with Hillary Clinton. I don't understand the difference between the criticism of Comey for saying that Hillary Clinton engaged in extreme carelessness. Everybody criticized that. And then we want to know why Mueller didn't charge the president. It's the same thing. The whole enterprise of special counsel, special prosecutors is inconsistent with the Constitution. I hope we've seen the last of it.

INGRAHAM: Now, Sol, you were watching John Dean's show yesterday where he testifying on the Hill and purporting to draw a connection between the Watergate roadmap to impeachment and what Mueller's report represents. Your thoughts?

SOLOMON WISENBERG, FORMER DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: First of all, they're completely different, those two roadmaps. Jaworski and the grand jury was very careful not to make any arguments whatsoever, not to draw any conclusions. They just said here's -- on March 17th, 1973, President Nixon had a conversation with these two people. Then they listed the tape recordings and the grand jury testimony that the House could look at. Totally different than the Mueller report, which made a number of legal and factual conclusions. That's number one.

But number two, more importantly for the people that still believe that firing James Comey could ever be criminal obstruction of justice, the Watergate roadmap, which was all about obstruction of justice, that's what the grand jury indicted people for, never in any way mentions the firing of Archie Cox as obstruction of justice.

DERSHOWITZ: Absolutely right.

WISENBERG: And I've looked at just about every book on Watergate. I don't believe Jaworski's people ever even thought about indicting anyone under an obstruction theory for firing Cox.

DERSHOWITZ: There is a precedent that's much closer, and of course nobody talked about it yesterday, and that's George H. W. Bush pardoning Caspar Weinberger, pardoning the five people on the eve of their trial. The special prosecutor, in that case Lawrence Walsh, said that was designed to stop the investigation, and it did stop the investigation. Nobody ever suggested obstruction of justice against President Bush. That's the relevant precedent.

Show comments Hide Comments

Latest Political Videos

Video Archives