General Discussion

What you described would be blanket immunity and most of the Justices did not seem to lean that way, although Alito did, IMO.

The discussion around official acts was in regard to responsibilities specifically given to the president in the Constitution. The attorney for DOJ, who opposes Trump attorneys, said that those are core responsibilities that would constitute official acts not done for self or personal gain.

Under that definition, Trump's behavior in regard to J6 and the documents would not be official acts and could be charged as crimes for personal gain.

But, some behaviors in regard to official acts are in a gray area. What if the president commits a crime in the role of Commander in Chief, which is an official role designated in the Constitution. What guidelines do you use to decide if it is a crime or just an error in judgment? One guide is if the action violates established law and cannot be justified.

So, a lot hinges on how the SC rules regarding official acts versus personal gain acts that are criminal in nature.