Is Trump Being Persecuted for ‘Private’ Acts?

Maybe I’m just too dumb or too old or both, but for the life of me I can’t figure out why the Supreme Court is showing even the slightest interest in the so-called legal immunity of a President, Donald Trump, or any other President, for that matter at all.

What gives anyone in this country the ‘right’ to break a law? Excuse me, but wasn’t this the whole reason why 55 men spent a hot and humid summer sitting in an a room in Philadelphia without air conditioning writing a legal document known as the Constitution in 1775?

Am I missing something here?

What the Supremes appeared to be doing in yesterday’s session was trying to make a distinction between behavior committed by the President as a private individual, which could not be granted any kind of immunity or protected status, as opposed to Presidential behavior which was required as part of the President’s job, or what was referred to yesterday as the President acting in his ‘official’ capacity.

So, if Trump had shot down some guy in front of Trump Tower (which he once promised to do to demonstrate the loyalty of his fans) this behavior might get him arrested and charged with homicide or felonious assault. On the other hand, if he gave the go-ahead to drop a bomb on the head of some terrorist leader standing on an airport tarmac outside of…