July was a lucky month for Donald Trump. The shots fired at him at a rally on July 13 were not the only bullets to whiz by his head.

On July 1, the Supreme Court essentially held that he had immunity for much of his conduct surrounding the events of Jan. 6. As Justice Clarence Thomas put it in his concurring opinion in the immunity matter: “In this case, there has been much discussion about ensuring that a President ‘is not above the law.’ But, as the Court explains, the President’s immunity from prosecution for his official acts is the law.”

The immunity decision left Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s indictment in so many tatters that even the redoubtable District Judge Tanya Chutkan will have difficulty stitching it back together. Smith has just announced he will not seek a mini-trial to unfold the evidence behind his allegations — at least not before the election.

Even the New York bookkeeping case and the Georgia election interference case are in jeopardy as a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

In the Georgia matter, the evidence showed that Trump pressured GOP Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to recalculate the vote count so he would end up winning the state’s 16 electoral votes. But is this an official act for which Trump would have immunity? And do the sins of the flesh of prosecutor Fani Willis put the entire case on the verge of dismissal?

A case that might have had a chance was the Mar-a-Lago classified documents prosecution, as it involved criminal conduct allegedly committed after Trump left office, so presumably no immunity. But on........

© The Hill