remember that on the team that mueller has is michael dreeben.s one of the most accomplished supreme court criminal appellate advocates. i expect the issue of whether or not the president can be subpoenaed to give oral testimony has been well-briefed by dreeben and dreeben feels he's on solid he'll ground to make that request to dowd at the time known that they will follow that route. >> professor dershowitz, though to jeff zeleny's point, if this does go the way of the courts, this could go on for a year. >> well, it could go for a year. i suspect first it gets to district court, and the district court splits the difference. and the district court says you must answer questions about your business dealings before you became president. you must answer some questions that you may have waived or some other areas, but there are going to be questions about your motives, your reasons, your intentions that the court will probably say is beyond the power of the grand jury. now, the interesting question is whether or not the argument that i've made, that

we talked about when mueller was putting on this team, michael dreeben was one of the most accomplished supreme court criminal advocates in the history of the office. i suspect the issue whether or not the president can be subpoenaed has been fully briefed and that if the president wants to push that route as apoesopposed to a volu interview i think he's going to win. >> do you believe that will absolutely happen if the president doesn't sit down for an interview voluntarily? >> i think so. because i think that the nature of the inquiry that mueller is under a mandate to conclude requires the president's testimony. and there's no way to obtain the sort of closure he needs on many of his issues within his mandate without the president's testimony. so i think that mueller, you know, an earnest prosecutor is going to say,press, i need this, it's part of my mandate. this is legitimate investigation. and if we can't work out terms voluntary, i have no choice but to spee to speed you. >> how do you think this plays out? >> remember there is also precedent for this. ken star also issued a subp

manafort's bank fraud, the judge told michael dreeben.d they were only interested in manafort because what he could provide that would lead to the president's, quote, prosecution or impeachment. that's what you're really interested in. the judge said we don't want anyone in this country with unfettered power. it's unlikely you're going to persuade me the special prosecutor can do anything he wants. this was a hearing on paul manafort's motion to dismiss the entirety of the virginia case. he contends the special counsel went too far in charging him with crimes that don't directly relate to the campaign. the judge will rule on that in a later date. in the meantime, the judge will get access in this case to that unredacted august 17 memo that spells out the special counsel's authority. the judge will be getting this. however, the memo will remain sealed so only the judge will be able to see it. that will no doubt cast a little bit more light for this judge on just how broadly the special counsel's powers are. we got a glimpse of this memo. i

long ago that when mueller was putting together his team, he put on his team, this fellow michael dreeben, who was one of the most accomplished supreme court criminal advocates in the history of the solicitor general's office. i suspect the issue whether or not the president can be subpoenaed has been fully briefed and that if the president wants to push that route as opposed to a voluntary interview i think he's going to -- i think mueller is ready to go that route and i think he's going to win. >> and how about mueller warning trump's legal team about a subpoena? do you believe that will happen if the president doesn't sit down for an interview voluntarily? >> i think so. because i think that the nature of the inquiry that mueller is under a mandate to conclude requires the president's testimony. and there's no way to obtain the sort of closure he needs on many of the issues within his mandate without the president's testimony. so i think that mueller, being an earnest prosecutor is going to say to the president, i need this, it's part of my mandate, this is a legitimate investigation.

representing robert mueller was michael dreeben, one of the most accomplished appellate lawyers in thentry, appeared more than 100 times before the u.s. supreme court. he barely got a word out before judge ellis started firing sharp questions, raising questions about how these bank fraud and tax fraud charges against paul manafort could possibly relate to russia collusion. everything you said there, unfettered power, raising questions about the $10 million budget. this is a judge with qualms of a special counsel with an unlimited budget rooting around and going after the president. that said, it doesn't mean he's going to grant paul manafort's motion to dismiss the charges, which is a real long shot legal experts say. it's possible, it's conceivable he may say this exceeds your mandate and this is a case properly handled by the u.s. attorney in virginia in the eastern district. >> i want to go to ruth marcus on this. ruth, donald trump, whether or not the argument that judge ellis put forward that americans don't want a special prosecutor with unfettered powers, donald trump went to wo