Presidential immunity and SCOTUS

Some of the justices seemed inclined to talk about the obvious flaw in Presidents having unbridled immunity from criminal acts. Some wanted to talk about future hypotheticals if a President doesn't have immunity. Then there's the added wrinkle with regard to 'official' vs 'private' actions. It's all a bit overthought to me.

Presidents take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." Is it not a given that taking the oath would include respecting and adhering to the law(s) of the land? And prior to Trump, I believe most, if not all, of the previous occupants of the White House, took the oath seriously, with full intentions to honor it.

Of course we all, including SCOTUS, know why Trump is on this immunity crusade, which has nothing to do with creating a potential impingement on a President's state of mind, while leading the country and making hard decisions when necessary. And how many of those decisions would break some law on the books? I suspect most decisions have taken into account, careful consideration of the laws.

Trump's lawyer wants to establish a scenario that would provide immunity for 'official' actions, as Trump is claiming his attempts to overturn the election were simply "raising concerns over the legitimacy of the election." Jack Smith says he was acting as a candidate and not in an official capacity. I'm suggesting: what difference does it make? Going back to my second paragraph, Trump took the oath and violated it. Whether he was President Trump, candidate Trump or ex-president Trump, he committed a crime.

Another SCOTUS hypothetical was a President appointing someone as an Ambassador and receiving $1M bribe in return for the appointment. Appointing the ambassador is an official duty. Taking a bribe is a crime. And there is the other absurdity of ordering Seal Team 6 to murder a political opponent and be immune to prosecution for doing it.

Again, we know what Trump's motives are but for any judge, justice or court to even entertain the thought is ludicrous. Still, based on the pundits I listen to, the high court could rule 5-4 either way.