Warning! I am about to propose a hypothetical that can induce a dangerous rise in blood pressure, induce nausea and hives. Ted Olson* had an article in
The Weekly Standard a few days back regarding the question of whether Mueller could compel Trump's testimony and if so under which set of circumstances and what kind of evidence Mueller would need to present to SCOTUS. Although I find Olson's distinguishing
United States v. Nixon and
Jones v. Clinton from a case involving Trump and Mueller persuasive, his arguments are not dispositive of the issue, in my view.
If you wish to get into the weeds, the article is
HERE.Here's the nightmare scenario. Who retires from SCOTUS in a few weeks? Kennedy or Thomas? Or both? If anyone announces their retirement and it is effective immediately at the end of the term. Mueller then obtains the grand jury subpoena for Trump and the legal wrangling begins. What will the composition of SCOTUS be when the case reaches them on an expedited basis, sometime this summer or early fall? If it is Kennedy, we are a four-four split. But if it is Thomas? Holy Crap!
The only solution is for Trump to request he gets a heads up if anyone on Scotus wishes to retire and their retirement be contingent upon their successor being confirmed, IMO. But there are no guarantees that will happen. ETA: Not to go all
Pelican Brief here but a SCOTUS assassination is always a possibility.
*Yes, I have been critical of Ted Olson in the past. He went BSC after his wife Barbara was killed on 9/11 in the crash into the Pentagon. He's definitely been left of center since that time so his conclusion that Mueller would likely lose in SCOTUS is note-worthy to me.