Jack Smith asks SC to answer if Presidents have immunity for acts taken while in office. Smith makes a Straw man argument and says "absolute immunity" of course there is no such thing as absolute immunity.

If SC rules no immunity exists, (they won't) that would mean every President past and future could be arrested the day they left office for misappropriations of funds , embezzlement, and a ton of other crimes.

Imagine every President being arrested for throwing a party an inviting family and friends. Under Jack's theory, that is misappropriations of funds. Best guess of what the cowardice SC will do is say Presidential acts have immunity and lower Court must decide if Trump's acts were in line with his duty as President.

These are comingled acts. He was President AND candidate. Candidate would have benefited if Trump succeeded, but his duty as President required he faithfully executed the office of the Presidency and enforced the law.

Just like in the analogy of a party inviting family and friends, the President had comingled benefits.

Expect this case to be weakly answered by SC with language saying immunity is not absolute but exists when it is in the line of duty or can be perceived as in the line of duty.

Chutkan gets the case back and hearings on each act about whether it was in the line of duty or not happen. Appeals before trial to follow (called interlocutory ) This case and Fani case are dead in the water now.