well-covered public events and moves them to a set of circumstantial conclusions. There is no smoking gun beyond the often flagrant, custom- breaking, events of the President's 16 months in office. Indeed, much of the evidence is based on the President's public statements and tweets about those events. "This indictment could have been drafted without anyone being interviewed," said one source. This is, from the perspective of White House sources good news: the case then, is just an issue of what motives are ascribed to the President's behavior— behavior that is, the President's supporters believe it is easy to show, impulsive and not thought out. Hence no intent. For the Mueller team, it is precisely that careless behavior and flagrant disregard for constitutional standards that they hope-to put on trial. According to a source involved in the Mueller strategy, the plan to indict the President is now "more advanced" than it was when the terms of the indictment were agreed earlier in the year. In the intervening months, the president’s lawyers, spokespersons and surrogates have staged a very public debate about whether such a legal proceeding would be constitutional—in effect trying to discredit, ahead of time, any prosecutorial action the Special Counsel’s office might take. This may be a preemptive response to an indictment they expect is forthcoming. It may also be an effort to pressure Rosenstein. It may even be an effort to convince Mueller of that, since some in the White House believe that that the plan to indict is not a strategy yet embraced by the whole Special Counsel’s office, but one that is being advocated only by its most virulently anti-Trump purists on the investigative team—most notably by the number two lawyer under Mueller, Andrew Weissmann. It may be noteworthy that there appears now not to be plan for an indictment related to collusion, although, legal experts say, that could come later and may depend on new information from the investigation o