His Highness was in the high court yesterday, seeking “presidential immunity,” which was his lawyers’ fancy way of saying: “All citizens are equal in the eyes of the law, but Donald Trump is more equal than others.”

In other words, the king is exempt.

The issue, as you probably know, is whether Trump should be compelled to honor subpoenas, from congressional committees and the Manhattan district attorney, for his tax returns and other financial records. It has been well established, of course, that no president is above the law – the Supreme Court in 1974 ordered Richard Nixon to release his secret tapes; and the court in 1997 ordered Bill Clinton to deal with a sexual harassment lawsuit – but the MAGA credo is that such rules only apply to mere mortals.

But before we parse Trump’s latest imperial pretensions, let’s review how this issue reached to the Supreme Court – by taking a quick trip in the wayback machine.

Trump on ABC News, as a private citizen in 2011: “I’m gonna do my tax returns when Obama does his birth certificate…I’d love to give my tax returns. I may tie my tax returns into Obama’s birth certificate.” (One week later, Obama released his birth certificate. In response, Trump said he’d fulfill his promise and release his returns “at the appropriate time.”)

Trump on Irish TV in 2014: “If I decide to run for office, I’ll produce my tax returns, absolutely, and I would love to do that.”

Trump on a radio show in 2015: “I would release tax returns…The answer is, I would do it…I would certainly show tax returns if necessary…I’m very proud of what I’ve done. I have no objection to showing any tax return.”

Trump on NBC News in January 2016, signaling imminent release: “We’re working on that now. I have big returns, as you know, and I have everything all approved and very beautiful and we’ll be working that over in the next period of time, absolutely.”

Trump on NBC in February 2016: I’ll release my tax returns “probably over the next few months.”

A reporter, querying press secretary Sean Spicer, spring 2017: “Is it time to just say once and for all that the president is never going to release his tax returns?” Sean Spicer: “We’ll have to get back to you on that.”

Trump – whose promises have the weight of soiled tissue – has been fighting in the federal courts ever since to stonewall public scrutiny. Thus far he has lost every ruling. Last November, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals noted that “the past six presidents, dating back to President Carter, all voluntarily released their tax returns to the public…the disclosure of personal financial information, standing alone, is unlikely to impair the president in performing the duties of his office.”

But that’s precisely what Trump’s lawyers complained about yesterday. If he is forced to comply with subpoenas and release his financial records, that risks “distracting him from his constitutional duties.” Aside from the fact that the Supreme Court unanimously concluded in 1997 that Clinton could deal with the Paula Jones lawsuit and still do his job – in other words, the high court has already rejected the “distraction” argument – the Trump team’s plea is hilarious for the reason we know so well:

Trump is supposedly so busy with his “constitutional duties” that he fired off 52 tweets on Mother’s Day morning – in one hour alone. The guy spends untold hours of “executive time” watching Fox News. He has visited his golf clubs 249 times since taking the oath of office, including at least five forays on the golf course since the start of the pandemic.

So the release of his financial records won’t distract him from doing his job. The worst president in history is uniquely gifted at distracting himself.

Even Chief Justice John Roberts reminded Trump’s lawyers that the Paula Jones lawsuit was allowed to continue because all the judges (including the Democratic appointees) thought the distraction argument was bogus. In Roberts’ words, “We were not persuaded that the distraction in that case meant that discovery could not proceed.” And when the lawyers persisted in arguing that Trump deserves total immunity from subpoenas, Justice Elena Kagan shot back: “You’re asking us…to put a kind of 10-ton weight on the scales between the president and Congress and essentially to make it possible for Congress to perform oversight and to carry out its functions where the president is concerned.”

Well, yeah. That’s exactly what they’re asking.

(Another howler: Trump’s lawyers argued that anything less than total immunity “stigmatizes the president in ways that will frustrate his ability to effectively represent the United States in both domestic and foreign affairs.” He’s already stigmatized. On the domestic front, two-thirds of Americans don’t trust him and say he’s dishonest; on the foreign front, he is a laughingstock.)

Nevertheless, when the Supreme Court rules on this issue in June, don’t be shocked if the conservative majority cuts Trump a break. Several in that posse grumbled yesterday that the congressional subpoenas for Trump’s financial records might be “harassment of the president.” The Republican appointees would need to surmount one tricky obstacle – the subpoenas were sent to Trump’s accounting firm and his German bank, not to Trump himself, and those financial outlets have vowed to comply – but I bet the five justices will find a way to finesse that.

George Conway, the conservative anti-Trump attorney (who helped Paula Jones in her suit against Clinton) wrote the other day that “the Constitution is concerned with protecting the presidency, not the person who happens to be the president. That’s because no one in this country is above the law. The Supreme Court is now called upon to teach that lesson once again.”

We’ll see about that. Will they honor the court’s precedents and stand up for accountability? Or will they wear Trump armbands?