Your grasp on stats is off: half of the people in the juror pool may be of below-average intelligence (probably not, since those in mental institutions, jail, dementia care etc are eliminated from the pool) but that’s what voir dire is for, to eliminate those who exhibit obvious biases. But more significantly, and this is my point, it’s not just the current trial before Judge Cannon he’s facing. He’s up against multiple trials in several venues, and that’s what will get him. Eventually, he’s going to run into a hanging judge and a hanging jury–unless he’s reelected.
I think he was just mis-remembering the quip: ‘Half of all people are of below average intelligence.’
If, for no other reason, than a former POTUS may opt to receive Secret Service protection for the rest of their lives – a protection which may be difficult to provide while he is incarcerated.
Alluding to, not misremembering.
But to be more serious, “average” (as the broad range of say the middle half) is sometimes able to be convinced of very stupid and illogical things. One doesn’t need to invoke political partisanship to get that. Often the most stupid are the most convinced that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
I can’t explain the fact that the individual charges are not independent die rolls any better than I have. I can live with @slicedalone thinkingbthat means I have no grasp of statistics! 
And “A jury is just twelve people who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty.”
Speaking of below average intelligence jurors, my own jury duty experiences have showed that the more intelligent jurors in the room tend to drive the analysis, the discussion, and ultimately the verdicts. The folks that were either less intelligent - or at any rate unused to engaging in critical thinking - were content to let the smart folks do the thinking for them and changed their vote when confronted with the facts presented and asked to explain their own reasoning.
The dynamics of the interpersonal interactions between a dozen individuals sitting around a table with you is quite different than that of dealing with either the crowds or anonymous online interactions we often associate with MAGAts. While a hung jury may still be possible, I tend to believe given the number of charges and the number of potential trials Trump will be facing, at least some convictions will almost certainly be happening if those trials can be held prior to the 2024 election.
Another reason why house arrest may be the best option.
I think Trump could get quite adequate protection if he was incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay.
As far as his strategy is concerned: “run out the clock”
To amplify Cardigan’s point here, a hypothetical hardcore Trump supporter who makes it through voir dire will have to sit in the jury box for (likely) several days, hearing a whole lot of evidence that they may never have previously heard. They won’t be watching Fox/OANN/Newsmax or listening to the local right-wing talk radio station - they’ll have to be focused on the case as presented. Then they’ll have to go into the jury room after the trial has ended and make their case for a not guilty verdict to their peers based solely on what’s been presented at trial.
It’s not easy for anyone to hold out in such a situation, even if you have the moral clarity of Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men. (Heck, in the play, Juror #8 offers to vote guilty on the second vote if no one else votes not guilty - if another juror hadn’t flipped, it would have ended halfway through the first act.) Note that there was one trial of a Trump associate (don’t remember who, more’s the pity) who had one juror squeak onto the jury wanting to vote for acquital; when the chips were down, she ended up voting guilty with the rest of the jury because she ended up convinced of guilt, ignoring her previous stance. Trial procedure has really been designed to focus jurors on their job, not on their prejudices to the greatest extent possible.
Note that all I’ve written above assumes that the prosecution has in fact made the case clearly and competently. Also, if you get a critical mass of pro-Trump sentiment on the jury, they might be able to form a mutally supporting bloc that can’t be reasoned with.
Yeah, you’d need a hard-core hardass Trump hard-head with a hard-on for the prosecution team to hang a jury, and that’s what voir dire is designed to detect.
Honestly, I think he will stick to his true form. He will lie about anything and everything in an effort to deny or at least deflect responsibility. It has worked well for him in the past. I think it’s all he has at this point.
Well, that’s what the judge will instruct them, before the trial starts and at the end of every day – no watching, listening to, or reading anything about the case, not talking to anyone about it, while trial is ongoing; nothing till after the verdict. Will a hardcore Trumpist, if s/he gets through to the jury, obey that instruction? It seems to me keeping the jurors sequestered could deal with that issue, although given the likely length of the trial that could also present problems.
In the modern era, sequestration of jurors is extremely rare. If ever a case called for it, however, this is it. (I still doubt it would happen)
Yes, I doubt it too, since it’s going to be hard enough to begin with to empanel an impartial jury for what’s going to be a long trial.
Solitary confinement. Problem solved.
Not really. Prisoners in solitary are still interacting with prison personnel (guards, doctors, etc.) and it’s not like those cells are hermetically sealed; my understanding is that prisoners in solitary typically leave their cells for an hour a day or so (for showering, exercise, etc.).
The Secret Service would likely believe that protecting the former president would include ensuring that all such interactions are also safe – otherwise, one prison guard with a grudge and a gun could carry out an assassination.
House arrest? Well, ok, but only if he stays at Mar-a-Lago in summer and Bedminster in winter.
I think this is being exaggerated as a problem. While Trump is legally entitled to some level of protection, there is no legal requirement of a certain number of agents, or anything specific. And it is not the kind of law where if secret service management violates it, they go to jail. It is more the kind of law that a conscientious bureaucrat follows to the maximum extent feasible.
There is no absolute safety. But an elderly non-violent offender would go to a safe low security prison where the greatest risk is suicide. All the other prisoners have already been searched for weapons. And if they behave badly, they get sent elsewhere. I hope Trump would agree to waive secret service protection while he is incarcerated, but, if not, secret service should come up with something risk-based. And risk is low.
I recall that in India a guard with a grudge has turned out to be an assassin. It could happen here. But I don’t see that prison guards are per se more dangerous than secret service guards.
However, the secret service could do some kind of screening of the guards. Make sure they haven’t been joking on the internet about Trump (or anyone else) being mistreated in jail. Makes more sense to me than standing outside his cell all day.
Pretty sure a dozen SS agents would get training as prison guards and serve in that function outside Trump’s cell and throughout Trump’s wing of the prison, if it came to that. It won’t.