Trump's greatest fear now is of the jury, so get ready for plan B

Trump's attempt to get the judge to delay the trial on charges of his trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election until after the 2024 elections in 2026 was not only a transparent ploy, it revealed something about what he fears the most.  He is acting as if he already believes he will be found guilty by a jury and does not want the trial to occur until after the 2024 election. This motion to delay the trial is classic Trump, setting up Plan B for an anticipated failure. Just like he did before the 2020 election when he gave the excuse if he lost it was because the election was rigged, he is now attempting to claim any guilty verdict can be explained away that he did not have time to prepare for his defense and is laying the groundwork for a post-trial appeal. The judge did not buy his whining and set the date for the trial to begin on March 4, 2024.

 Trump has reason to fear a jury trial.   It is a trial by jury that is the most credible way to determine how guilty he was or not. This is not the same as a court of public opinion, which Trump is an expert in shaping, but it is a court based on evidence. testimony, and facts. It is not an infallible system, but it is as fair as any judicial system can be.   Trump, the master propagandist, cannot bluster, lie, explain away, whine before, during, or after about the unfairness of it all, or threaten retribution to court witnesses and street violence. He likely will not testify, given his tendency to lie and perjure himself. What he usually does when cornered is to blame someone else, likely in this case, relying on bad advice from his lawyers.   

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/federal-judge-set-trump-trial-date-election-interference-case-rcna101669

 Trump may object he needs more than six months to prepare (when the case against him has not been kept secret for the past year). Still, it appears it is a standard time for a case with one defendant and only four items in the indictment, despite the volume of the evidence disclosed by the prosecution to them. It may be thousands of pages, but note that Trump raised $seven million off his mug shot and, as a "billionaire," can afford to hire cadres of attorneys to wade through the evidence. Voters need to know a jury's findings before they cast their votes, not after. Voters have rights, too, as the judge noted. Her date setting is not subject to appeal to a higher panel of judges, though Trump may still try to challenge the trial if he gets a guilty verdict because he did not have time to prepare.  A recent national poll showed that over 60%Americans still want the trial to occur before the 2024 elections. Most in new poll say Trump should be tried before election | The Hill. 

In most other countries, a panel of judges or a judge may make the ruling in a criminal case that could result in jail time. Still, the trial by jury, as the US system requires, puts that into another realm and requires a unanimous decision by 12 of the accused peers in criminal cases. It is one thing for the accused to rant and rave over innocence or how unfair it is in the media, but this one, a trial by a citizen jury, makes any finding much more credible. 

 Stacking the jury or dirtying the pool from which the jury is chosen before the trial is a time-old defense strategy. In the DC federal case regarding election interference, Trump is attempting now with his words and devil incarnate mug shot while trying to avoid violating the judge's constraints regarding what he can and cannot say.   The safeguard in selecting a jury is that both the accused and the accusers can challenge a prospective juror who professes to be open-minded when, in reality, they are secretly partisan. The other safeguard requires all jurors to be unanimous in their final vote in the federal criminal case.   Another in the US judicial system that stacks the case in favor of the defendant., The accused is considered innocent and does not have to prove innocence.  The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to the jurors that the defendant is guilty. The burden is on the prosecution to make its case. The accused does not even need to testify in self-defense. 

Trump: ‘The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged’ | The Hill

Not yet has Trump threatened violence if he got a verdict of guilty, but he did claim it would happen if he got indicted. That fizzled. But it could be anticipated in  Trump's 2024 Plan B. It has happened before., in 2020 .

From my blog posting: Update September 24, 2020: Trump himself is threatening insurrection, refusing to commit to a peaceful transition to power if he loses the election.https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54274115 This advocate of law and order is threatening violence. What is he planning to do? Summon his armed militias, unleash his "federal troops" a la Portland? Call for violent demonstrations by the right-wing advocates of violence and civil war? Then what. This may fit under the category of insurrection and the military may see this as intervening, not as intervening in domestic politics but permitted under their charge to intervene in an armed insurrection. with case law.case law defining what it is.: Insurrection means “a violent uprising by a group or movement acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers. An insurrection occurs where a movement acts to overthrow the constituted government and to take possession of its inherent powers.” [Younis Bros. & Co. v. Cigna Worldwide Ins. Co., 899 F. Supp. 1385, 1392-1393 (E.D. Pa. 1995)]"

The Senate immediately passed a resolution upholding peaceful transition with a unanimous vote and a rebuke to Trump immediately and clear, though his name was not in the resolution.  For that we can be grateful, but what say the rest of the GOP?