A new theatrical production in Washington is aiming to be “Hamilton” for the Make America Great Again crowd.

The same documentary filmmakers who convinced the White House to host a recent screening of an anti-abortion movie have planned a live stage reading next month based on thousands of anti-Trump text messages recovered by the FBI last year from the cellphones of the former Trump-Russia investigators Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, three people familiar with the project told POLITICO.

Story Continued Below

And they’re hoping President Donald Trump will attend.

“We’re lobbying the White House hard,” said a person directly involved with the production. “We are being told the president loves the idea of exposing this.”

The Trumpian production, entitled “FBI Lovebirds: Undercovers,” will be directed by Phelim McAleer, a conservative provocateur who has co-written and produced a handful of political films about abortion, fracking and environmentalism with his wife, Ann McElhinney. Dean Cain, a Trump supporter who played Superman in the television series “Lois & Clark” and who starred in the anti-abortion film, “Gosnell” has agreed to play Strzok, according to McAleer.

Actress Kristy Swanson, known for her lead role in the 1992 cult film “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” will portray Page, who engaged in an extramarital affair with Strzok during and after the 2016 election when they were colleagues at the law enforcement agency.

Reached by phone on Tuesday, Swanson confirmed her involvement and said she and Cain had already read through a script, which draws verbatim from Strzok’s and Page’s texts, as well as from closed-door testimony that Strzok gave to the House Judiciary Committee last June. A transcript of the interview was released earlier this year by Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., the ranking Republican on the House panel.

“We are going to show the mainstream media and Hollywood that they can no longer push the Russia collusion hoax and force them to acknowledge how the Deep State, DC Swamp tried to destroy the Trump candidacy and presidency,” reads a crowdfunding page named after the production that McAleer set up to help cover related costs.

The page aims to raise $95,000 in one month (an event contract reviewed by POLITICO listed McAleer’s theater rental cost as $5,620) and offers “perks” such as a signed playbill or VIP performance pass for different contribution levels.

McAleer, who participated in a White House meeting last fall with other anti-abortion groups and worked closely with Trump aides to screen “Gosnell” in April, declined to say which officials he’s spoken with about his latest project. A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

The Studio Theater, a non-profit theater company located just one mile from the White House, confirmed to POLITICO on Wednesday that McAleer had rented one of their four theaters to use for the production on June 13. McAleer in a phone interview said he is willing to take a loss on the project if he fails to reach his fundraising goal, though he cited the prior success of his crowdfunding campaign for “Gosnell,” which raised $2.3 million in 45 days.

Strzok and Page became household names in early 2018, months after Strzok was removed from special counsel Robert Mueller’s team when it became clear that he’d been romantically involved with Page and some of their anti-Trump text messages had surfaced. Both Strzok and Page had been under investigation by the agency’s inspector general for potential political bias, including whether Strzok’s anti-Trump opinions played a role in the bureau’s decision to launch the Russia investigation in 2016.

In one of his messages to Page from 2016, Strzok described the probe as an “insurance policy” in case Trump defeated then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in the general election. In another text after Trump won the presidency, Strzok wrote to Page, “OMG I am so depressed.”

Trump and his allies have repeatedly cited Strzok and Page as evidence of a “deep state” scheme inside the Justice Department to subvert his presidency and cast doubt on the 2016 election. “More text messages between former FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are a disaster and embarrassment to the FBI & DOJ,” the president tweeted on Sept. 13, 2018.

During a contentious congressional hearing last July, Strzok said he “very much” regretted his text messages with Page, but maintained that they did not impact his or her work at the FBI. Strzok also played a role in the FBI’s probe of Clinton’s use of a private email server.

Despite Trump’s interest in the pair of ex-FBI investigators, it would be unusual for him to promote the stage reading or attend the event. Though he has previously used his Twitter feed to recommend books by many of his allies, he has rarely endorsed other projects or personally attended controversial events. Trump did not attend the screening of “Gosnell” at the White House, nor did he join several of his top aides and Vice President Mike Pence in publicly praising another anti-abortion film, “Unplanned,” when it was released in late March.

The Supreme Court may well be headed for an election-year fight over abortion rights, but it’s not likely to be a blockbuster showdown over Roe v. Wade.

Courtwatchers anticipate that the justices will agree to take one or more cases related to abortion restrictions in the coming term, drawing attention to the polarizing issue as the 2020 presidential campaign moves into a critical phase.

Story Continued Below

Further stoking the speculation is the passage of sweeping new abortion limits in several states that are largely designed to trigger a Supreme Court battle, with Republican lawmakers hoping that a high court transformed by President Donald Trump’s judicial picks will bring down the landmark 1973 ruling that guaranteed abortion rights nationwide.

These lawmakers have helped pass new laws in Mississippi and Georgia banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected — about six weeks into pregnancy. And just last week, Alabama went even further, passing a near-outright ban on all abortions at any time during pregnancy, even in cases of rape or incest.

The deliberate escalation by the states has led to talk that a head-on challenge to Roe could be before the justices in their next term, which opens in October and typically produces its most hard-fought decisions in the following June. That would be June 2020, weeks before the Democratic and Republican Conventions and just months before Trump and a Democratic nominee are likely to square off at the polls.

A potential repeal of Roe amid a presidential campaign could have a dramatic and destabilizing effect on the race — and that’s at least in part why legal experts on both sides of the abortion divide say they don’t see it happening, at least not in the near future.

“The most likely and correct path is for these bans to be blocked by lower courts and the Supreme Court will not even step in,” said Julie Rikelman of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

“I think Chief Justice John Roberts would probably prefer that they not get into that in the middle of an election,” said Caroline Fredrickson of the American Constitution Society, a liberal legal group.

Pro-life lawyer James Bopp Jr. said he doesn’t think a case squarely aimed at eliminating Roe will ever be taken up by the high court. “I think it extremely unlikely the court will ever take a direct attack on the Roe case,” said Bopp. “The court just doesn’t operate that way….This idea that you’re going to force them to reconsider Roe v. Wade is just absurd.”

Bopp favors overturning Roe, but he’s dismissive of the new laws that seek to ban abortion of a fetus before it has attained viability. “There’s a lot of ill-informed hype on both sides about these measures….They’ll never go into effect,” he said.

Bopp said he believes at least two justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, have no desire to be involved in a frontal attack on Roe. The pro-life advocate noted that last December both men appeared to side with the court’s Democratic appointees in declining to hear a case about the rights of states to curtail funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides abortions as well as an array of other health services.

“Roberts and Kavanaugh refused to take up a case that only involved state funding of Planned Parenthood, so to think from that we’re going to infer that they’re anxious to overturn Roe v. Wade?…That’s light years away,” Bopp said. “Not that I don’t want that [but] there’s no indication whatsoever of that.”

Another obstacle to the Supreme Court considering the new abortion bans anytime soon is the rhythm and pace of the federal court system. Cases typically take months to be decided in a trial court, then proceed to an appeals court, where many more months can pass before a decision is made by a three-judge panel. Sometimes there are efforts to get the full bench of an appeals court to take the case.

At the Supreme Court, cases usually need to be in the pipeline by October to stand a chance of being heard in the spring and decided by June.

“There really isn’t enough time for any of these bans to get to the court in the next term,” Rikelman said.

But the likely absence of the strictest measures from the high court’s docket doesn’t mean abortion will be entirely off the agenda. Abortion-related cases could reach the justices in the form of emergency stay applications, although those don’t usually garner the attention of a fully briefed and argued Supreme Court case. And challenges that don’t squarely attack Roe but involve laws regulating abortion facilities and providers are either currently before the justices for potential review or could be in that position by fall.

Perhaps the most likely issue for the Supreme Court to take up is a case over a Louisiana law requiring physicians who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. In 2016, the court struck down a similar Texas law by a 5-3 vote in a case known as Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

However, one member of the majority in that case — Justice Anthony Kennedy — has since left the court and been replaced by Kavanaugh. And the vacant seat of late Justice Antonin Scalia has been filled by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

It would be unusual for the Supreme Court to take up such a similar case so soon after deciding an earlier one, but in February the justices voted, 5-4, to put the Louisiana law on hold. Usually, when the court steps in under such circumstances, it eventually grants review in the case.

Rikelman says she hopes the court will do that this fall, but will find the case so close to the earlier one that it skips over full briefing and argument and simply reverses the 5th Circuit decision that turned down a challenge to the law.

One thing prompting chatter among courtwatchers is the indecision that seems to have infected the court’s consideration of abortion-related cases in recent months.

Last Friday, the justices had their 14th closed-door conference where they were set to discuss a case challenging an Indiana law regulating disposal of fetal remains and prohibiting abortions based on race, sex or disability of the fetus. Again, the justices punted, putting the case down again for this Friday.

A challenge to another Indiana law requiring an ultrasound test at least 18 hours before an abortion will be on conference for a 2nd time this Friday, while an Alabama law banning what the state calls “dismemberment abortions” was scheduled for five court conferences and pulled each time.

Some lawyers say the unusual delays suggest some horse-trading may be underway among the court’s conservatives. The votes of only four justices are needed to take up a case. Sometimes repeated conferences mean a dissent from the denial of review, or certiorari, is being written. But 15 conferences for the same case is rare.

“It’s puzzling, to be honest,” said Florida State University law professor Mary Ziegler, an expert on the history of abortion law. “If they aren’t going to hear these cases, why don’t they just deny cert. If they are, they’re just pushing it closer and closer to the election and probably engendering maximum controversy….There’s something going on behind the scenes.”

“I think there’s a lot of negotiation going on internally among the right-wing justices about how to do this in a way that doesn’t give those who believe in women’s access to health care a campaign issue,” said Fredrickson.

Fredrickson said she fears the various regulations effectively making abortion impossible without ever triggering the uproar that would accompany overturning Roe. “When you shut down all the clinics in a state, it’s a ban even if it’s not called that,” she said.

Regardless of what the Supreme Court does, litigation over new abortion laws seems certain to continue to play out as the presidential race heats up. Just Tuesday, lawyers were before a federal judge in Jackson, Miss., jockeying over the law that state enacted in March that bans abortion at the time a fetal heartbeat is detected, sometimes as early as six weeks.

U.S. District Court Judge Carlton Reeves said the state’s move “smacks of defiance” against a ruling he issued last year blocking a ban on abortions before 15 weeks, CNN reported. A federal appeals court is likely to hear arguments about that ruling later this summer, keeping attention on the issue even without a high court fight.

A POLITICO/Morning Consult poll released Tuesday shows Americans still divided on the abortion issue, but with a majority appearing to favor maintaining Roe. About 55 percent of voters said abortion should be legal in all circumstances or up to the point of viability, while 42 percent say it should always be illegal or limited to cases of rape, incest or risk to the mother. And roughly half of voters said they think it’s not likely the Supreme Court will overturn Roe.