The best part of Alan Dershowitz’s Fox News op-ed is the title, Dershowitz: Mueller’s special counsel appointment begs the question — are our civil liberties now at risk? No doubt it was written by some wag at Fox, but its misuse of the logical fallacy, beg the question,* makes it deliciously delightful when it comes to brother Dersh.

But his rant has a point, even if proposed in the barely-concealed desire to be retained for the defense.

This investigation will be conducted in secret behind closed doors; witnesses will be denied the right to have counsel present during grand jury questioning; they will have no right to offer exculpatory testimony or evidence to the grand jury; inculpatory hearsay evidence will be presented and considered by the grand jury; there will be no presumption of innocence; no requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, only proof sufficient to establish the minimal standard of probable cause. The prosecutor alone will tell the jury what the law is and why they should indict; and the grand jury will do his bidding. As lawyers quip: they will indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor tells them to. This sounds more like Star Chamber injustice than American justice.

Should Dersh be forgiven his theft without citation of former New York Chief Judge Sol Wachtler’s “indict a ham sandwich” quip? He can’t blame that on some Fox News wag, but I digress.

While the Bob Mueller appointment thrilled many, as we would now get to “the truth” of the matter, Dersh correctly notes that it’s not quite so. This won’t be a trial, but just a one-sided investigation. Even if Mueller ends up issuing a report, which he’s under no obligation to do and might not happen for years, it’s still just “like, his opinion, man.”

It will not be subject to the crucible of cross or the opportunity of the accused to argue to the contrary. While Dersh’s argument borders on the hysterical, as civil liberties are no more at risk here than they are every day, the likelihood of Mueller’s results being misunderstood and, if a crime is found, given undue credence is high. Maybe even a certainty given the political climate.

But then, Eric Posner and Emily Bazelon go the alternate route, contending that Mueller’s appointment doesn’t absolve Congress of its duty to conduct its own investigation, a political investigation, against their hated Darth Cheeto.

Now the question is whether the Republicans who control the investigative committees in Congress will push as hard as necessary to find out whether Mr. Trump abused his power and violated his oath of office. In a crucial development, the House Oversight Committee and other Congressional panels have requested all materials related to Mr. Trump’s and Mr. Comey’s communications.

Notably, they list “abuse his power” and “violated his oath of office” as the focus of the investigations, two vague phrases of little legal consequence. They sound like terrible things too, and they may well be, if only they meant something concrete. Which is why these aren’t good goals for a legal investigation, but perfect for Congress.

As a structural matter, Congress is the institution best positioned to address the harms President Trump is causing, including trampling on norms separating politics from law enforcement and damaging America’s standing abroad, as well as the potential conflicts of interest posed by his wide-ranging financial holdings and the hiring of family members into key White House jobs.

This mash of grievances isn’t new, but covers legal issues as well as “stuff we just really hate when someone we really hate does it,” like “trampling on norms.” Norms aren’t laws, obligations, but ways of conducting oneself that have developed in polite society, whether for good reasons or just because. Why does a gentleman remove his hat indoors? So what if Trump doesn’t behave “presidential”? Wasn’t that part of the reason he was elected, to disrupt norms?

But Posner and Bazelon try to spin their demand of Congress to “take care” by tying it to the destruction of the office of the presidency, which may not survive Trump’s stewardship.

But Mr. Trump has created an entirely new problem for Congress, the courts and agencies: What do they do when the president himself is the pressing danger? Unlike other presidents, Mr. Trump has lacked the basic competence to manage the government. If Congress and the courts diminish the power of the office to constrain him, could they leave the office too weak for future presidents to be able to govern effectively?

This goes to a very fundamental question of whether we recreate law and politics, change and water down legal doctrine, to shut down the crazy President. The choice is whether to maintain in place our system of governance and law, because that’s how we’ve survived the past couple hundred years, or change everything because the unthinkable happened: we elected a president who has no clue how to run this nation. Posner and Bazelon make their choice:

The answer is that with the country at risk of serious harm from Mr. Trump, the damage to the office is secondary. The next president will just have to pick up the pieces.

So while Dersh fears that the public misperception of Mueller’s investigation will undermine public perception of civil rights, Posner and Bazelon fear it won’t oust Trump from power soon and publicly enough. The Fox News headline might be humiliating for an academic emeritus, but if anybody is begging the question here, it’s Posner and Bazelon.

*And for those of you who argue that the now-common incorrect usage is correct because that’s how people use it, and dictionaries now offer an alt definition, you deserve to be tarred and feathered. The solution to improper usage is not to validate it, but to correct it, current trends in pedagogy to respect inaccurate beliefs notwithstanding.