RUTHFULLY YOURS

First and foremost, because it is the report of a prosecutor, it will inevitably be one-sided. Prosecutors pick the witnesses they present to a grand jury. Defense lawyers are not allowed to appear with their clients, or to present witnesses who might contradict the prosecutor’s case. Prosecutors need not provide exculpatory evidence, even if they are aware of it. Nor need they interview witnesses who might contradict their narrative. That is why it is generally considered unfair for prosecutors to issue “reports.” Normally prosecutors announce only that the subject has been indicted or not, without further comment.

Special counsels are permitted, and sometimes required, to issue reports—but in doing so they are governed by rules. The title “special counsel” might seem to give their findings special weight—to which they are not legally, morally or logically entitled. That is why in a high-stakes case like this one, it is imperative that the target’s legal team be allowed to issue its own report, presenting its side of the case. Basic fairness requires this, and the American public is entitled to judge for itself which side is more persuasive.

There should never be a presumption in favor of crediting the one-sided reports prepared by prosecutors. Such reports have no higher status than an indictment, and an indictment handed up by a grand jury is not proof of guilt—only a charging instrument. Like an indictment, a special counsel’s report should not undercut the presumption of innocence.

That is why it is so important for the president’s legal team to be accorded an opportunity to present its own report, based on its own investigation, its own evidence, and its own knowledge of the facts. To make the rebuttal presentation fair, the Mueller report should be presented confidentially to the attorney general or his designee, as the regulations require. A copy should also be provided to the president’s legal team. The attorney general should not allow the special counsel’s report to be made public—and should take care that it’s not leaked—until the president’s team has had a chance to review and respond to it. The attorney general should then issue both reports so that the media and the public have a chance to assess them in tandem. Simultaneous disclosure is permissible under the rules, and everybody would benefit if both reports are issued at the same time.

We can anticipate that the Mueller report, if unrebutted, will probably be quite damaging, even devastating, to the president and his associates. Virtually all reports by special and independent counsels, from Kenneth Starr’s report on Bill Clinton to Lawrence Walsh’s on the Iran-Contra scandal—have been devastating when issued without any rebuttal. This doesn’t mean that the report would survive a well-documented rebuttal. But absent a rebuttal, its impact should not be underestimated.

I don’t believe that the Mueller report will directly accuse President Trump of any crimes. Collusion—even if Mr. Mueller were to conclude that it occurred—is not a crime. Nor can exercises of a president’s constitutional authority or rights—such as firing an executive-branch official, issuing a pardon or tweeting—be turned into crimes by stretching elastic statutes. What Mr. Mueller will do, if he is wise, is simply lay out the facts and try to connect them in the most incriminating possible way. He will try to create a mosaic that makes the president look guilty of political sins, if not federal crimes.

It is important to remember that the witnesses whose information may serve as the basis of a report have not been subject to cross-examination. Their accounts may not be entirely credible, but the report can still rely on them. Because the report—if it does not lead to indictments—will never be subject to the truth-testing mechanisms of an adversarial trial, its conclusions should not be accepted at face value.

It is not difficult for a prosecutor to construct an incriminating narrative if there is no contemporaneous rebuttal. The task becomes much more difficult—and therefore the process fairer—if both sides are heard simultaneously.

The president’s lawyer should file a request now with the Justice Department for an opportunity to review and respond to the Mueller report before it is released to the public or to Congress. The department should grant that reasonable request.

Mr. Dershowitz is a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of “The Case Against Impeaching Trump.”