Brown Jackson pinpoints the immunity issue

Trumpler asserts that a President is absolutely immune for his official acts. So she asks why doesn't SCOTUS just answer that question instead of engaging in distracting, abstract hypotheticals? 

"If a president’s official acts are not entitled to absolute immunity, she suggested, the problem is eliminated. Why, she asked, would the president not be required to follow the law when performing his official acts?" She added: "Even if we reject the absolute immunity theory, it’s not as though the president doesn’t have the opportunity to make [other immunity] arguments that arise. We shouldn’t be trying to, in the abstract, set up those boundaries ahead of time as a function of sort of blanket immunity."

Roberts got at this issue by asking if bribery is committed in the execution of an official act, like appointing an ambassador, the crime cannot be separated from the official act, as the former depends on the latter. Hence there is no absolute or blanket immunity for official acts.

But the answer to Brown Jackson's question is that apparently at least four of the conservative justices are obviously avoiding the issue because they are partisan hacks whose only duty is this case is to protect Trumpler by muddying up the issues and delaying trial.