The questions special counsel Robert Mueller supposedly wants to put to President Trump make one thing clear — it would be folly for the president to sit for an interview with these jumped-up G-men.

It’s not just that the questions badly undercut the claims that Mueller is not targeting the president. If, as the saying goes, a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, Mueller appears to be building out of Trump a Dagwood special.

It’s also that for the president to sit down for an interview would be to acknowledge Mueller’s authority to begin with. Yet the more Mueller shows his hand, the more illogical his authority starts to look.

That’s because the only authority the Constitution clearly grants to investigate a sitting president is the impeachment process. Before this fight is over, Trump may yet want to use that argument.

Mueller’s questions for the president were reported Tuesday by The New York Times. It says it obtained four dozen of the posers, without saying whether they came from Mueller’s camp or Trump’s (or elsewhere).

No matter, really (Mueller is not disputing the questions). They include kind of verbal traps a prosecutor would set if he wanted to make his ham sandwich using, say, obstruction of justice.

Mueller’s questions start with Gen. Michael Flynn, whom Trump fired as national security adviser. Mueller wants to know what efforts were made to “reach out” to Flynn about a “possible pardon.”

When Flynn started cooperating with the FBI, the Times claims, “Trump’s lawyers floated the idea of a pardon.” It says Mueller wants to know why.

That suggests Mueller’s team is fishing for a charge that Trump tried to obstruct justice by using the pardon power. Never mind that the pardon is the least-fettered power any president has.

Where are the liberal papers on this outrage? Even the Times objected when, in 2014, a grand jury in Texas indicted then-Gov. Rick Perry for using his constitutional veto power.

Perry had threatened to veto funding for a public-integrity prosecutor. Liberal foghorns (among them the Times, USA Today, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times) warned that prosecuting a veto was out of line. Superlawyer Alan Dershowitz likened it to the Soviet Union.

Texas courts tossed out the case against Perry on the grounds that using a constitutional power like the veto isn’t a crime. Yet Mueller appears to be doing a similar thing with the pardon power.

Same with the constitutional power a president has to fire his officers. This shows up in questions about whether Trump was toying with the idea of firing Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Could that have been obstruction of justice? Mueller seems to think so. He has a raft of queries about the AG, starting with what Trump thought of Sessions recusing himself from the Russia probe.

We already know the answer to that. Trump thought he deserved an attorney general who doesn’t feel the need to recuse himself from the most important investigation on his watch. Is that a crime?

Mueller is also looking for an angle on Russia collusion, which was part of his actual assignment. This is suggested by a host of questions the Times reports Mueller has posed.

The first is when Trump “became aware” of the meeting with the Russian lawyer offering dirt on Hillary Clinton. Don Jr., the Times notes, has said he didn’t tell his father of the meeting when it happened.

Clearly, Mueller is trying to trip up one of them. The long and the short of it, though, is that it looks like Mueller’s aim is to put the president in the dock.

Meaning, indict him on obstruction or other crimes — which he probably doesn’t have the authority to do anyway — or, more likely, fish up something for Congress to use as the basis for impeachment.

To prosecute a president, the Constitution suggests, first he must be removed through impeachment. Then, it says, he shall be “subject to Indictment, trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to law.”

Why do Robert Mueller and the Democrats seem to be itching instead for an indictment? Well, Dem leaders are signaling there’s not enough to impeach — yet. Maybe it just doesn’t have a taste for ham sandwiches.