When You Come at the King: Inside DOJ's Pursuit of the President, From Nixon to Trump – A Legal History of Special Counsel Cases and Accountability

by Elie Honig

For decades, the Department of Justice has appointed Special Counsels to resolve our most difficult, high-stakes cases involving our most powerful politicians. But do these independent legal investigators, who operate at the intersection of politics and the law, lead to more just results?

Federal prosecutors at the United States Department of Justice are fond of saying they treat all criminal cases, and all subjects, “without fear or favor.” But the DOJ’s most explosive, highest-profile criminal investigations and prosecutions have been conducted differently. When the stakes are the highest, DOJ literally operates by a different set of the Special Counsel regulations.

In this hard-hitting analysis, CNN Senior Legal Analyst and bestselling author Elie Honig chronicles the history of  outside prosecutors and the Justice Department’s most consequential political casesHonig offers new insights into the machinations of American government with original reporting, including over 25 on-record interviews with historic figures who worked directly on our most important cases, including prosecutors, defense lawyers, and targets and subjects ofinvestigations by outside prosecutors

Going back to Watergate and the Iran-Contra scandal, through Ken Starr’s investigation of Bill and Hillary Clinton, Honig reveals how the Special Counsel system developed, and why the number of investigations has rapidly risen in recent years. He looks closely into cases involving Robert Mueller, John Durham, Jack Smith, Robert Hur, and others, covering each of the major Special Counsel investigations in modern history, considering them not merely as freestanding prosecutions, but as part of an ongoing historical development.

While each major Special Counsel case rests on its own merits, these investigations collectively test the Justice Department’s foundational policies and principles. In its most dramatic, politically consequential cases, DOJ changes its own practices in ways that are at once both necessary and problematic. The question What would happen if we got rid of the Special Counsel, and  can the system evolve to better serve the call for justice in a constantly-changing political environment?

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, Audiobook, Government, American History

336 pages, Hardcover

Published September 16, 2025

Reviews

[Brendan (History Nerds United) · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's always nice to have a well-written and researched book which totally confirms a personal hypothesis. In this case, Elie Honig completely verifies my assertion that modern politics is a total clown show. His book, When You Come at the King, is an exploration of Department of Justice Special Counsels (the position had different names but I will use this one throughout).

Of course, Honig covers exactly who you think he would. A president whose arrogance allowed him to lie to the American people and then hide behind lawyers and double speak. Yes, Bill Clinton is covered in this book. Oh, that's not who you thought I meant? I'm just kidding. Clearly, I meant Nixon. Haha, nope, maybe I mean Reagan. Biden? What do you mean I still haven't said who you expected? Weird.

Of course, I am making a point here (surprise!). Honig meticulously walks through all the Special Counsels from Nixon to today. If you think this is a one-sided hit job, then you are going to be massively disappointed. All the presidents covered fail to live up the highest ideals we would expect them to embody. (Side note: George W. Bush comes off quite well from this perspective, especially in comparison to the rest.)

At the heart of all of this is the question about the efficacy of the Special Counsel as a position. Each case seems to vary wildly on who gets tabbed, what their orders are, and how it all turns out. Actually, how it turns out is pretty consistent. If a "no name" person gets convicted, then they do some jail time. If the person is high up enough, the president will just pardon them. Getting your cronies out of jail is a very bipartisan activity. Honig also spends a good amount of time on presidential immunity which could fill its own book.

This is an extremely easy read from a prose perspective. Honig is a lawyer by trade, but even the more complicated aspects of the cases are told in simple terms for less legally inclined. He covers a ton of ground in about 300 pages, and it felt like the perfect amount of space to give you details without droning on about legalese.

It is the year 2025 (uuuugh), so I should mention Honig is the senior legal analyst for CNN and thus, people have expectations/preconceptions. While I certainly wouldn't call Honig a fan of Donald Trump, he is dispassionate when discussing the matters of law. (And for the record, Bill Barr is the one who takes the biggest hits in this one.) Honig points out multiple times where Trump and his legal team had solid grounds for their actions and strategies against a rather unfair investigation. If you are willing to leave your politics at the door, I think you will find that this book is excellent, even if you do want to argue some of the finer points with the author.

I mean, he is a lawyer. I'm sure he'd love arguing with you.

(This book was provided as an advance reader copy by the author. All opinions are my own because I am super opinionated.)

[Dixie McIlwraith · Rating 2 out of 5]

Non partisan, readable and informed book.

If the legal history of the administrations from Nixon to Trump interest you you'll enjoy this analysis of the history of prosecutions from Watergate to Trump. My only reservation was the naive last chapter and Honigs solution.

[Matt- History on the Hudson · Rating 5 out of 5]

When You Come At the King by Elie Honig provides a compelling and insightful exploration of the efforts to hold the highest office in the land accountable to the people. The book delves into the evolution of the Special Counsel and its predecessor, the Special Prosecutor, offering a thorough examination of their roles in investigating abuses of power—both real and perceived—that have shaped some of the most consequential decisions in American history.

Honig, a seasoned prosecutor, presents a concise historical overview, focusing on three pivotal 20th-century presidential cases that necessitated the appointment of a Special Prosecutor by law: Watergate, the Iran-Contra affair, and the Ken Starr investigation that led to President Clinton's impeachment. Rather than delivering baseless opinions, Honig provides nuanced insights into how each case was pursued and adjudicated.

The narrative then transitions to the modern era of the Special Counsel, which emerged after the Special Prosecutor law expired in 1999. Honig examines contemporary cases such as the Trump and Biden classified documents investigations, the Trump election interference case, and earlier cases like the Valerie Plame identity leak. Each case is analyzed in detail, with Honig offering a thoughtful critique and proposing a comprehensive restructuring of the Special Counsel regulations.

When You Come At the King is an engaging and highly accessible exploration of an often-overlooked topic, shedding light on how dedicated legal professionals have sought to ensure accountability at the highest levels of government.

[Shelley · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a well written and very informative deep-dive into the investigations of possible illegalities committed by those in the uppermost echelon of government. I found it especially interesting and helpful to have a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the major investigations going back to the Watergate investigation on up to the recent investigations involving election interference and mishandling of classified documents. The author does a good job of assessing how well each Special Counsel did or didn’t perform regarding the basic requirements set forth as the purpose for the investigation. The book concludes with feasible changes in the process to prevent political bias, evasion of accountability, and weaponization. Highly recommend this one.

[Fanchen Bao · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an enjoyable read despite the seemingly dry topic. Kudos to the author for making the discussion of Independent and Special Counsel engaging. But after finishing the book, I just feel deeply disappointed that if people in the U.S. government really want to do illegal stuff, they can totally do it (they have been doing it for sure) without any consequences.

The attorney general can openly violate the law by cherry-picking what they like or dislike from written regulations; the president can pardon whomever they want, including blood relative, regardless of their crimes (this sends a very bad signal that one can commit whatever crime necessary for the president because he can always pardon you afterwards); the Supreme Court can decide that the president has wide immunity within his core responsibility, which means as long as the president frames his illegal deeds carefully, he will never be punished for them.

This again reminds me that the U.S. government, or democracy in general, only works because of the good faith of its people. Now that the good faith has been seriously eroded in the past decade, do we still have confidence in the Union's future?

Interesting Quotes

"I knew it would be illegal to release any of the documents because of grand jury secrecy rules. But in terms of saving democracy and holding accountable a criminal president, maybe we have to do that".

--p3. Referring to Wine-Banks hiding documents of Watergate in her house in case the investigation was called off by the president and the evidence confiscated or destroyed.

A nation reveals much about itself by how it holds accountable its most powerful leaders when it suspects they've done wrong.

--p9.

[Ulysses] Grant created what would become a playbook of sorts for the next century and a half, for better or worse...He initially appointed an outside prosecutor to insulate himself from growing public criticism. When the prosecutor's case began making inroads toward the White House, Grant tried to derail it through political maneuvering. When that failed, he fired the outside prosecutor on a flimsy pretext. The president complained loudly that he was beingunjustly persecuted by the media and targeted by prosecutors; the media accused Grant of cronyism and obstruction. And, although the investigation yielded indictments and convictions of various underlings, it ultimately fell short of the president and his closest ally.

--p13. The resemblance to how most of the presidents behave today when the investigation cuts too close to home is uncanny.

In sum, the new law created a specific statutory mechanism for appointment of a Special Prosecutor, whereas none had existed before; gave the Special Prosecutor near-total independence from the attorney general and the Justice Department as a whole; protected the Special Prosecutor from arbitrary or baseless termination by the president or attorney general; required the submission of written reports through which the Special Prosecutor could account for his work; enlisted the Judicial Branch to oversee and protect the Special Prosecutor; and created a direct line from the Special Prosecutor to Congress, in case meriting potential impeachment.

--p34. That is A LOT OF power bestowed to the Special Prosecutor.

The EPA administrator at the time, who eventually was held in contempt of Congress, was Anne Gorsuch--mother of current Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch.

--p38. This is not be the last time that a current Supreme Court justice shows up as direct participant or relative to a participant of some historic matter discussed in the book.

From 1981 to 1985, the Reagan administration sold arms to Iran in violation of a Carter-era embargo and then used the proceeds to fund counterrevolutionary forces (known as the Contras) in Nicaragua and elsewhere in Cengtral America, which Congress had prohibited.

--p42.

Here's what Clinton said immediately after his infamous response: "If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement." In other words, in Clinton's parsing, it all comes down to verb tense. "Is" is present tense and, at that very moment in time, Clinton was in fact not having sex with Lewinsky, right then and there on the deposition table.

--p71. Honestly, I don't quite follow what Clinton blabbered there, but regardless, the fact that he was a weasel is beyond dispute.

Public interest in the report pushed the outer capacity of the then nascent internet. Before the release, government tech officials braced for unprecedented demand...Brad Rubin of Yahoo...declared, "I definitely think it was a good proving day for the medium, no question."

--p73. That was 1998. Though I was old enough to remember things, this event happened so far away from home that all I could recall was some imagery and soundbite from the international news in my hometown TV station.

The primary drafter of this latter section of the report was a young attorney on Starr's investigative team: Brett Kavanaugh, the future Supreme Court justice.

--p77. The "latter section" refers to the more legally and politically sound part, in contrast to the former, novelistic part, of the Starr's report. And here is the other appearance of a future Supreme Court justice.

"I hope that we sent a message to these independent counsel. We, the American people, don't want any more of these trivial, petty cases... This was a travesty."

--p104. This refers to the investigation in September 1994 when Donald Smaltz, acting as Independent Counsel, investigated whether Mike Espy accepted bribery while serving as the secretary of agriculture. It was a nothing burger and ended with an acquittal for Espy.

The expiration of the Independent Counsel Act in June 1999 sparked a rare wave of enthusiastic bipartisan consensus. Just as seemingly everyone had agreed on the need for an independent counsel law after Watergate in the 1970s, twenty years later, everyone agreed the law should die.

--p106.

Accusations of partisan prosecutorial bad faith have been lobbed at outside prosecutors long before Robert Mueller, John Durham, Robert Hur, and Jack Smith accepted their recent appointments. And terms like "witch hunt" and "fake news" were coined by investigative targets well before Donald Trump came along.

--p109.

As we've seen, the Independent Counsel Act gave the courts and Congress substantial power over the prosecutorial process, traditionally a purely Executive Branch function. But the Special Counsel regulations place the prosecutorial function entirely within the Executive Branch, with no involvement by the courts or Congress. That Executive Branch-only structural feature has important constitutional implications

--p113. The implication is that the Special Counsel is not answerable to Democracy (not confirmed by Congress) and there is no separation of power (everything within the Executive Branch).

A procession of recent former AGs from both parties echoed the criticism...Michael Mukasey, who had been nominated by George W. Bush, said Comey "stepped way outside his job" because the FBI director "doesn't make that [charging] decision." ...former Bush administration Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, said Comey made "an error in judgement"...Former Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder offered the most blistering assessment: Comey's actions "violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions," "broke with these fundamental principles [that DOJ should avoid actions that might impact an election]," and "negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI."

--p153. Referring to Comey suddenty reopening the Hillary Clinton's private email server case right before the Election Day.

"It was never the mission of the special counsel to bring down Trump. And the mismatch between some people's expectations and the reality of what a criminal investigation of a sitting president could and should actually do came at a real cost."

--p168. Referring to Robert Mueller's investigation into Russia interfering with the 2016 election. Mueller playing strictly by the book was easily twisted by Trump and his Attorney General Bill Barr. When your opponent does not follow the rules, you are a sucker to stick to the rules. We are all suckers to Trump and his cronies.

The first rule of cooperation is that the aspiring cooperator must answer all questions from the prosecution truthfully. But plainly, in the view of Mueller's prosecutors, Manafort had lied repeatedly, and the deal was off. It's likely no coincidence that Manafort's breach happened after Turmp had publicly floated the possibility of a pardon;

--p176. What's the point of investigation, indictment, trial, and conviction if the convicted can be readily pardoned by the president?

Zebley, Quarles, Goldstein, and Weissmann have all publicly described Mueller's decision not to state his legal conclusion on obstruction as "principled." Indeed, by declining to state whether Trump committed a crime, Mueller protected the foundational DOJ principle that prosecutors shouldn't make public accusations against a person, like Trump, who was not charged with a crime.

--p180. While they called it "principled", I say it's no different from appeasement. If sticking to the rule was how the mainstream government attempted to deal with Trump, no wonder they have lost. And in view of the recent development of the Right wing agenda, there might not even be a chance to lose anymore.

"We had just been played by the attorney general," Weissmann later wrote in his book. Zebley, Quarles, adn Goldstein echoed the sentiment that Barr had unforgivably distorted the Special Counsel's findings. Mueller himself would soon fire off a private letter to Barr, noting that Barr's summary "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions."

--p184. Reading this sequence of events, it felt like the Mueller team was trying to preserve the china shop by reasoning with the raging bulls of Trump and Barr.

Barr deliberately removed the part of Mueller's sentence establishing that (1) Russia committed crimes to help Trump win the election, (2) the Trump campaign knew about Russian efforts to use stolen information to help Trump win, and (3) the Trump campaign expected to benefit from that Russian election interference.Barr included only the part about how the proof did not rise to the level of a specific, provable federal crime.

--p185.

Barr was, and remains, the malefactor here. He's the one who misled the public about Mueller's findings and then withheld the report from public view while his own spin metastasized. But Mueller bears responsibility, too, of a different nature. Even if he had noble motivations, Mueller took a narrow view of his job under the Special Counsel regulations, leaving his own case susceptible to manipulation by an opportunistic attorney general. Barr was more than happy to oblige.

--p189.

It turns out that Barr simply skirted the very same Special Counsel rules he sought to activate. He kept the provisions he liked--the ones that ensured independence and protection against firing--and skipped the ones that were inconvenient. In his order appointing Durham, Barr specifically cited most of the Special Counsel regulations but not the one requiring that Special Counsel be chosen from outside government.

--p204. If laws can be cherry-picked rather than followed in its entirety, what's the point of having the law in the first place?

Irresistible fun fact: In 1864, Lincoln pardoned Moses J. Robinette, a civilian employee in the Union Army who had stabbed another Union employee during a fight in a mess tent and was sentenced to two years of hard labor. Robinette was the great-great-grandfather of the future president, Joe Biden.

--p242. And this func fact is irresistible to be recorded.

A single district judge has found the Special Counsel regulations unconstitutional, but neither the court of appeals nor the Supreme Court got a chance to weigh in.

--p265. Referring to the aftermath of Trump's second election and the abandonment of Jack Smith's Special Counsel investigation into Trump's effort to steal the 2020 election and his possession of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

indeed, the Supreme Court made clear that Trump's effort to pressure state and local officials was a private campaign act, not an official one, and could remain in Smith's case. So the immunity ruling has made prosecution of presidents vastly more difficult than it was before--but not altogether impossible.

--p282. Oh I don't know about that. All the future presidents need to do is to have a bunch of good lawyers to ensure that everything the presidents have done are within the scope of immunity. Lawyers, especially well-paid lawyers, are very good at this sort of thing. I think with the expansion of president's immunity, the U.S. president is practically a king.

[Carol · Rating 2 out of 5]

In my quest to understand what is going in my country, I read Elie Honig's latest book. It was okay but not an easy read. Perhaps if I had studied law to better understand I would have given it a higher rating. Nevertheless I'm not sorry I spent the time reading it.

[Mike Green · Rating 1 out of 5]

I like Elie and would love to see more like him in the public space. Knowing enough about the recent IG cases to spot lots of one sided omissions I doubt the telling of the other cases. ie baker text, immunity in diversion agreement………. Basically this book isn’t too useful unless you already know the subject.

[Regan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Marvelous read. I've enjoyed Honig's commentary and prior reading. He lays information out so that a lay person understands, but doesn't talk down to those who work in the legal field. You can easily see what he was like as an attorney -- assessing the facts, presenting them and coming to a conclusion. He pays attribution to those who contributed to the book via their interviews, maintained confidential sources. He covers the major Special and Independent counsels since Nixon -- what they did right -- not just according to Honig but what those who were there had to say along with how history played out since. At the beginning he provides a check list of elements that come to bear with a special or independent counsel and then at the end of each chapter lays out how those elements played out in the end. His final chapter offers solutions and conclusions. A fabulous, educational read that every high school and law student needs to read.

[Cheri · Rating 4 out of 5]

An engaging and well-written deep dive into the various special counsel/independent counsel investigations in American history and the evolving legislative framework. I appreciate Elie's perspective. He is very wary of providing his political opinion generally but he does call out what he sees as plainly wrong regardless of political party. We attended his book tour (in his hometown) and I enjoyed his anecdotes and the discussion.

[Kristin R · Rating 5 out of 5]

A well written brief overview that looks into our history of special investigations of our Presidents. Some aspects of our policies need to be addressed and mistakes have been made, hopefully the future will bring some positive changes to this process to make it less political. Very thought provoking and easy to read. The depth of people the author spoke to is impressive. I was lucky enough to hear him speak about the book and it was a great discussion.

[Kenny Schwarz · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was very impressed with this book! Honig has compiled a very thorough and balanced history of special prosecutor investigations, examined them through thoughtful and consistent criteria and produced an impressive book. Given that Honig is a prominent media personality on CNN with a hard critical tone of the current administration, I expected his analysis to be book to be somewhat unbalanced. However, I found his analysis to be reasonable and fair-minded when it came to examinations of people like Robert Bork, Jim Comey, and Jack Smith.

In all these profiles, Honig faces both praise and criticism where it is due, and does so in an engaging manner. This book gets Hugh praise from me, and well-earns a five-star rating!

[Halecki · Rating 5 out of 5]

informative, readable history of Special Prosecutions

Good book.
I learned a lot about the last 50 years or so of American history. Some things I knew; in others, I was mistaken.
He presented very clearly the circumstances surrounding the prosecutions.
It was very readable and I enjoyed it thoroughly.
Read it, it’ll be worth your time

[Eric Dale · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great job in detailing the history of Special Counsel in a thorough and interesting fashion as well as making recommendations for how that law can be improved. Hopefully rule-makers are also readers!

[Reader · Rating 4 out of 5]

A brief and concise legal history of investigations into Presidents. It was mostly non-partisan, and helpful for explaining how decisions were made. If you enjoy readable non-fiction, give this one a try. No earth shattering revelations, but worth reading.

[Tierney · Rating 5 out of 5]

A propulsive history, an accessible legal analysis, this audiobook was narrated by the author with the clear enthusiasm he has for the subject shining through.

[Rich · Rating 3 out of 5]

OK, interesting at times.

[Daphne Clausen · Rating 5 out of 5]

it's crazy how much you can forget in so little time

[Erin · Rating 4 out of 5]

very well written. my only suggestion would be to tell the individual stories of each special/independent counsel more chronologically. the story tends to jump around too much inside each chapter.

[Wallace McKenzie · Rating 4 out of 5]

good summary of special counsels. and how they have been used on the past 50 years. also outlines some of the challenges and possible solutions.

[Gi V · Rating 5 out of 5]

fascinating

[S. · Rating 3 out of 5]

detailed with great insights, conclusions and recommendations. highly Informative and enlightening. it makes a dull topic as interesting as possible - and yet is still a bit dry.

[Anne · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was one of those books I picked up here and there. Dry but worth the read and I LOVE Elle Hoenig.

[Julie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was worried this would be a bit dry but it was surprisingly fast-paced. The section on Clinton was particularly interesting. He definitely got more opinionated when discussing more recent events though. I don’t know if I agree with his perspectives on everything, but it was an interesting read/listen.