instrument to undermine the investigation. According to present and former White House advisors, the President's recent spates of pardons are in part his way of taunting the Special Counsel. The White House, according to these sources, is aware that the Special Counsel has concluded the pardon power is near absolute: the President can certainly pardon himself, and others involved in the investigation. Early in June, the Special Counsel, believing that a pardon for Michael Flynn was imminent, rushed to build a case that might form an exception to the President's pardon authority. The argument, perhaps a slim thread one, tries to undermine what both the White House and many outside legal authorities, and much of the Special Counsel's own research, believes to be one of the few unchallengeable powers granted the President. In effect, the Special Counsel continues the theme of it’s case: there is a level of obstruction of justice that all reasonable men might know when they see it. If you pardon someone to get yourself off the hook, that’s a "corrupt" action. Since the President is in charge of upholding the constitution and much of the constitution is about preventing corrupt acts, the pardon, in the case of Michael Flynn, is unconstitutional. What's more, since there is an impeachment process in place—or there at least several impeachment resolutions before congress—and impeachment is the province of Congress, a pardon ofa potential witness in this impeachment is an unconstitutional trampling on the separation of powers. As the President, by nature and design, tries to claim aggressive new powers, the Mueller team, almost in equal proportion, is trying to limit the theory of Presidential power and, even, to criminalize an expansive exercise of those powers. People who know and have worked with Mueller find it, at best, unexpected that such a traditional, and by the book, G-man, would be pursuing such far-reaching legal theories. One view, shared by the White House