So, take this with a big grain of salt. As I see it, impeachment is a political process that is designed to remove someone from office, it is not a criminal trial. So, one has nothing to do with the other. The "immunity clause" protecting public officials from prosecution in a court of law, pertains only to them performing their "official duties" which holding a rally on January 6th was not, nor was trying to intimidate state officials into changing voting results. Nothing "official" about that. Definitely, there is nothing official duty related to killing your political opponents, I think the judge gave the extreme example to see if Trump's lawyers were just arguing he has absolute immunity for anything he does. Of course, Trump's lawyers argued that was the case. I do not think it makes any sense to tie the political process of impeachment to prosecuting someone for something that is an obvious crime. 

So, I think, hope, believe that the crap Trump's lawyers said is seen as utter nonsense. My guess is they lose this case in the appeals court and Trump takes it to the Supreme Court. Now, I would think that the Supreme Court would never rule that a president has absolute immunity, as that does make him Caligula rather than a representative of the people. Who would want that? 

I admit, because it has been shown at least two of the justices on the court have been shown to be corrupt, it is more than a little nerve wracking to have them decide this, but we are now in a position where it must be decided. Trump has placed us on that slippery slope and he is testing our institutions to see if he can break them. Everyone should be aware this is coming.