Trump has to face his trials BEFORE the November election

There is still masses of uncertainty about Donald Trump's forthcoming trials. When the US Supreme Court announced that the judges had agreed to look into Trump's claim that as a former president he should enjoy immunity from prosecution even after his office had come to an end, all his trials were effectively put on hold. It's suggested that the judges will make their decision in June, so theoretically, provided of course they reject the immunity defence, there is no real reason why the trials shouldn't go ahead swiftly. Except that when lawyers are involved every kind of delay can be thrown into the system, and if a scheduled date gets too close to the election, it's highly unlikely that a judge will take the risk of going ahead with a trial, given the prospect of having the Republican Party's nominee for president sitting in court rather than out campaigning. Nikki Haley, for obvious reasons, wants all the trials to be wrapped up before the election date because she thinks - and she's right - that it's only fair on the voters to know what they are voting for. If they have no idea whether Trump is going to be tried and convicted or not on any of the charges, how can they make a valued judgement? So, somehow, between the US Supreme Court and the judges preparing the trials for Trump's 91 criminal charges, there has to be an agreement that the sooner they are held and completed the better for the country. But that's a Big Ask, as they say.