There is an interesting discussion going on tonight as to whether a president under criminal investigation should be able to nominate a supreme court justice. Futile, undoubtedly, but still the argument has merit. Along the same lines as to whether he can pardon himself for his many crimes...
the only discussion is inside your head. No doubt you're hoping for another benefit from the "Russian collusion" which your side invented.
So what's the plan, stall in the hope you take back the Senate?
For what it's worth, BJ Clinton appointed two justices (RBG 1993 and Breyer in 1994) at a time when both he and hillary were under investigation for their role in the Whitewater scandal, which the feds were investigating because a federal Savings and Loan (Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan) went bust, costing the US taxpayer $73M
The Constitution is unambiguous.
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.