If you believed your country was still a Democracy (and you clearly don't), you'd realise the lunatic you're rooting for is the one betraying all the principles your nation was founded upon.
You are mistaken. America is a Republic. The so-called government is the Democracy. The 6th and 7th Amendments to the Constitution allow a 12-person jury of the Republic to strike down any Government law... with relation to the court circumstances to which they allow themselves to be called.
I have told you a million times: youtube is not a credible source of information in general, but those channels that you seen to be following are probably the humour section of some short of outlet.
6th
7th
There absolutely nothing of what you say on this nor any other amendment. A jury cannot fucking "strike down" any law dumbass, much on the contrary, they have to decide on specific questions about the charges following the criteria setforth in the common law.
Go to kindergarten dumbass.
Thank you for proving my point... well, several of my points. You forgot the part of my quote which says, "... with relation to the court circumstances to which they allow themselves to be called." It's only when a large number of juries strike down a law that SCOTUS will be called to strike down the law for the whole country. Other than that, the law is stricken for the court case to which the jury has been called, and so strikes it.
You quoted it right in your quoting of the 7th Amendment, "... and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." In other words, what the jury decides is the thing that becomes law for the case at hand... even the striking down of a Congressionally mandated law.
But that is only for, "... Suits at common law," as the 7th Amendment says. There is no common law trial for criminal cases listed in these two Amendments. So, if Trump wanted to avoid being criminally charged, he should have switched the court over to the Common Law side. The way to do it is to stand as a man, present, and not represented (no attorneys)... and make the statement that any man/woman who has been wronged by him should get on the stand, show the wrong, and "I will compensate him/her." So, it is Trumps fault for not swinging the whole thing into common law, and holding it there.
However, Even if he accepts a criminal jury trial, the decisions of the jury cannot be changed except through a proper declaration of mistrial. If the jury decided that Trump was innocent of everything, he would get off, free. It would only apply to him. The next person accused of breaking the same law(s) as Trump, would have to get his own jury, and jury decisions for himself. They might be different than in Trump's case.
Now you can see why the judge won't allow Trump a jury trial. Trump is popular enough that many juries might set him completely free. The judge is partially wrong in this. He isn't supposed to dis-allow a trial by jury, even if the defendant agrees to such, or hires attorneys, becoming a ward of the court, thereby. But nobody seems to want to take the judge to task over his failure to obey his own Rules of Court.