I'm out and about but I will get back to this when I can sit at my desktop and dig

And finally able to get to it! I'm glad to go through the exercise because if challenged on something that I took for granted (that Trump wants to delay the trials until after the election), I want to have more background on motivations.

Interacting with mods in the past has lead to my being banned, and I realize I have a lengthy "rap sheet", but you do come across as one of the more even-tempered mods so I'll allow myself to speak plainly.

For trials across the board, there were many calls for a mistrial (see trials for Cannon, Kaplan, Merchan, Engorgon). Below is one example, from the recent NY trial. Per the bolded part, I do concede that this tactic isn't exclusive to Trump's strategy. It sounds like the motion (for a mistrial) could also be used a set-up for a later appeal; again I'm not a law-head and this is the kind of thing I'd like cleared up by someone who is.

Trump’s lawyers objected to the testimony and requested a mistrial, saying the lurid details Daniels disclosed had prejudiced jurors against defendants. Judge Juan Merchan rejected that request, but still conceded jurors had heard information they should not have.

While Trump is likely to use the episode in any potential appeal, experts doubted whether he would succeed.

“Skirmishes like this happen all the time, and defense attorneys call for mistrials in many, if not most, criminal trials. I don’t think this was even close to cause for a mistrial and don’t think it would end up being a major issue on appeal,” said Rebecca Roiphe, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office who now teaches at New York Law School.

And I found some details about the motion I alluded to earlier (re-submission without adding anything new):

The former president is also attempting again to force Merchan’s recusal from the case, citing his adult daughter’s professional activities for Democrats. But under New York law, a judge is generally not conflicted out by the activities of his adult children unless they had a substantial interest in the proceedings, like being a witness or party in the case. (And as any parent can tell you, the idea that a child’s politics automatically reflect the parent’s is ludicrous.) The facts and the law remain materially unchanged from when Merchan denied Trump’s first recusal request. The judge based his ruling on an opinion from the New York State Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, which found “nothing in the inquiry to suggest that the outcome of the case could have any effect on the judge’s relative, the relative’s business, or any of their interests.” Nothing of any consequence has changed since then, so this motion too is futile.

I couldn't get a good read on the presidential immunity motions. The lower court was quick to dismiss it but it's been sitting with the SCOTUS for so long. Guess we'll find out Monday whether it had merit!