The cases against him are obvious hokum, but since when has that mattered? If the government wants to destroy you, it will succeed. Now, if you're lucky, rich and young - you might be able to spend 20 years trying to clear you name, and then (and even that has only occurred in non-political cases) belatedly succeed. Trump does not have that sort of time - he's old and morbidly obese.
There is a second cope that people will see through the fact that these cases are hokum - as little as that would help him. While that is not impossible (and Trump has defied political gravity many times before), there is an equal - if not greater - possibility that enough people will be swayed by the indictments against him. "I'm voting for the guy who doesn't have 79 indictments against him" is a reasonable statement if you live in a country with a rule of law and isonomia, which many people imagine they live in.
There is a silver lining. The first generation of reformer never succeeds - think the Gracchi brothers - and often comes to grief. The regime has here put itself in a lose-lose position. Imagine if they get what they want, and Trump is convicted and is sent to prison until he dies. They still lose, because they lose the fig-leaf of republican legitimacy, and had to behave in openly banana republican ways - permanently alienating the 30-40% of die-hard Trump supporters. It does not matter, you say, but it does - that's why both the regime and even openly autocratic states try to retain legitimacy for their power and their elections.
If they lose, and Trump is re-elected, it's more obvious why they will lose. This is a man they could have easily won over with a little bit of flattery and just by not being obnoxious (cf. Lindsey Graham and Mike Pompeo). Instead, they have made him lust for their blood, and God help them if he ever is re-elected. Here too they are in a lose-lose - either he will use the powers of the presidency to crush them, or the impotence of the presidency itself will be exposed. Both rather undesirable situations for the regime. Which is why I think they've gone to such desperate measures, and may even resort to assassination as happened to the Gracchi - and they'd get the same result in sowing the seeds of their own destruction just as the Optimates did.
None of this is to suggest "giving up", because I think everyone has an obligation to fight for what is right regardless of the circumstances.
The DC judge is fanatical. Julie Kelly says she is the worst in DC. She has imprisoned thousands of innocent jan 6th protesters in solitary confinement.
This is the key point. She's been the DOJ's hatchet woman in the J6 cases, and she's already complained about Trump "not being held accountable". She's already decided to fry him, and it would be malpractice for Trump's lawyers not to try to get her kicked off the case.
Its my understanding that it is the judge HERSELF who decides this motion to recuse herself…
Initially yes, but I think the chief judge can review a denial of the motion. It's probably futile in a swamp like the DC district court, but the real point would be to preserve the issue for appeal and hope for an honest panel or a willingness by SCOTUS to take up the case.
The best case scenario would be change in venue, but that's a heavy lift and even if he got it there's no way the case would be heard in West Virginia as Trump wants. It would either by in Maryland or Virginia. Maryland has similar problems to DC, but probably to a lesser extent. Virginia is a little more hopeful, but what complicates that is there are 2 federal districts in Virginia, and I don't know which one would get the case, or if either one could guarantee a fair trial. It can't get any worse than DC though, so they have nothing to lose by trying.