Dershowitz vs Toobin

This is an interesting debate that sort of goes to the heart of a couple of matters as it pertains to Special Counsel. The first is the question of whether Alan Dershowitz is playing politics for basically holding the same position regarding special counsels today as it pertains to Trump, as he did back in the 90's when he opposed a special counsel appointment to investigate Clinton. I think this is important, because there certainly seems to be an overwhelming viewpoint from people like Toobin, that anything having to do with Donald Trump should sort of render all logical consistency irrelevant, and allow for a blatant change of position. Apparently, not doing so is akin to carrying Trump's water. 

But the part that stands out to me is Toobin's argument at the end, that the involvement of special counsel was "required" as a matter of political optics to make things appear fair. This is one of those textbook hypothetical wishful arguments that makes no real tangible sense in the actual world we live. Right, wrong, or indifferent Ken Starr was either glorified or damned, depending on what side of the political aisle you resided. Same for Patrick Fitzgerald who investigated the Valerie Plame situation. To believe that somehow this would be different with Robert Mueller, requires a willing suspension of disbelief. Especially considering the staff he put together, and the fact that he cannot (or won't) control the political leaks coming from his own camp.

Intention or not, the appointment of Special Counsel is literally the most politically charged event an Attorney General can make. It basically guarantees that you will have public and political divisions that generally rise to almost rabid levels. It will never really be seen as "fair" to anyone. Some may argue as such (because they secretly are rooting for Special Counsel to find criminal behavior), but nobody "really" believes it's fair.