Fair enough. But until he is adjudicated wrong, he continues as if he were right.

First, he'd have to be charged with a crime, something the DoJ won't do while the president is in office. Only once he's out would they even start investigating. Once charged, he could argue it in court. File endless motions before trial. File every interlocutory appeal that is even remotely possible. Appeal every loss there to the USSC. Then finally go to trial, file more motions during trial before losing. Then file an appeal, file endless motions there before losing. Lastly, appeal to the USSC and lose there. Only then will he actually be wrong. Until then, he is presumed right - or innocent.

Nearly all of that was true before the ruling. Trump's allowed to - and has - raised bunches of defenses and arguments why he's not guilty in the lower courts. Even the NY state decision. They were (nearly) all denied, so he hasn't final adjudication of most of them - and he's appealing many of them as well. This is not unusual - a well-resourced defendant with access to competent counsel has gobs and gobs of arguments and points of entry to raise arguments in order to delay the absolute "finality" of their judgment. Very few defendants bother, because nearly all of those delaying arguments are so likely to lose that it's not worth blowing the money for a few months of delay. Only in very unusual contexts do months matter.

Note that he's presumed innocent in all of these criminal proceedings anyway, regardless of questions of immunity.

Most importantly, the people of the country would have some important facts available to them on which to base their voting decisions in November. Now the people will not have those facts. For a country based on an informed electorate, keeping them uninformed is a very bad look.

The people of the country have nearly all of the facts available to them now - what they don't have is knowledge of the outcome of the trial. Regardless of whether you think that's a "bad look" or not, it's not really something that's appropriate for the judiciary to take into account in its decisions regarding the case. The theory here is that Trump is being tried like any other criminal defendant - he's neither to be benefited nor penalized because of his status as a prominent political figure. The government doesn't really have a credible interest in rushing a case (or any decisions in that case) for the purpose of affecting a political contest. Which is why in all of Jack Smith's briefs to the SCOTUS on timing and expediting, he never cited getting a verdict prior to the 2024 election as a governmental concern. Probably because he would have been slammed by the courts if he tried to argue that.