re: If the US Supreme Court would rule against Trump ...

Are you suggesting "ACTS in office" vs. "ACTS out of office" is actually holding the office vs. when you are no longer holding the office?

Or are you suggesting that there are things a president can do while being the president that can be "outside the official duties of office" to where presidential immunity doesn't apply?

I guess the correlation I am trying to make is like a "course and scope" argument. If one can make the argument that a sitting president did something outside the scope of his office (employment as president) then the immunity doesn't apply. This being in contrast to a president doing an action that is clearly within the scope of his office and thus is protected by the presidential immunity.

For instance (and this would never happen but I make this crazy hypothetical to make a point), if a sitting president were to sneak out of the white house one night and go rape or murder someone clearly he would be said to have committed a crime that had nothing to do with any official act of his office. Thus, one would argue that there is no immunity.

So is the Fed govt (Jack Smith) taking the position that Trump's actions that arguably caused or contributed to the Jan. 6th events were not "official actions of office" thus Trump should not have immunity for same?