An incumbent campaigning to retain their present office is not carrying out the duties of the office. A President's speech on matters of public concern is not invariably an official function. Motion to the contrary can be made at summary judgment after development of facts supporting the claim.
The President attempted to alter the declared election results by various means.
The President has official immunity for all acts within the outer perimeter of official presidential responsibility, including discretionary acts within a concept of duty associated with the office. An action's unlawful nature or inappropriate purpose does not move it past this outer perimeter.
Actions taken in a plainly and purely unofficial context could be included in a test identifying matters of public concern. Inquiry into public/private capacity is distinct from this. An incumbent seeks re-election in a private capacity. Inquiry into capacity is objective and context-specific; if the inquiry yields no clear answer, the conduct is immune.
Claim under the "Take Care" clause presumes official capacity rather than establishes it.
Structural separation of powers claim for lack of immunity actually establishes the contrary, as it's Executive action. E.g., Steel Seizure cases.
First Amendment/incitement is a distinct calculus -- would afford protection when least needed, and vice versa.
Deft. has a right to develop the record for purposes of immunity prior to merits stage, as the immunity is immunity from suit.
CONCURRENCE:
Motive inquiry is intrusive. Objective reading of content could mislead. Speech clothed in the trappings of the office generally immune.
PARTIAL CONCURRENCE:
Scope of the interlocutory analysis appropriately limited to the denial of absolute immunity as claimed, rather than setting out a calculus for the determination of context-specific immunity.