The Trump administration isn’t legally required to make public Special Counsel Robert Mueller's full report on his Russia investigation, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz said during an appearance on Fox News' "Hannity" on Monday night.

As Democratic lawmakers pressure Attorney General William Barr to release the entire report without any redactions, Dershowitz used the “shoe on the other foot” test to demonstrate that the Trump administration doesn’t have to comply with the Democrats' demands.

'COMPLETELY POLITICAL': DERSHOWITZ SAYS 'NO LEGAL BASIS' FOR DEMS TO SUBPOENA FULL MUELLER REPORT

"There’s nothing in the regulations that require to reveal anything," Dershowitz said, "and the best test is the shoe on the other foot test. When we go back to [former FBI Director James] Comey’s statement, if Comey had said ‘We’re just not going to indict Hillary Clinton on the emails,’ and the Republicans said, ‘Wait a minute. We heard you have a report that said she was extremely careless. We want you to release that,’ the Democrats would have jumped up and down and said, ‘No, no, no. Prosecutors don’t say anything negative about people they haven’t indicted.' All they’re supposed to do is announce ‘no indictment.’

"Well, suddenly everything has changed," Dershowitz continued. "And it’s the Democrats who want to know why there wasn’t charges. They want to know what the split was between those who wanted to charge and not charge an obstruction of justice. The law does not authorize that to be released.”

Dershowitz said Barr can use his discretion when it comes to the release of the Mueller report, but “no court should order” him to release the entire thing. He also warned that innocent people can fall for “perjury traps.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“If an innocent person testifies truthfully and somebody else testifies the other way and if prosecutors choose to believe the other person, you’ve fallen into a perjury trap," Dershowitz said, "which is why I think the president was right not to testify to Mueller and why I think civil libertarians ought to be very concerned about exposing to criticism a one-sided report, which only saw one side of the story and didn’t result in indictments.

"That’s traditionally not done -- and at least the courts have to be asked to come in and decide what can be shown and what can’t that come from grand juries.”