Well, I know that this will be difficult, but try your best to follow. Almost universally, this particular case has been crapped on by legal scholars (and there have been many lib commentators lamenting that this case is the first one out of the box rather than one or two of the others that might actually have legs). The biggest thing going for this particular case is a judge that is clearly not in any fashion pro-trump (I'm allowing for the possibility that he is fair, which is not my actual belief) and that the judge forced this matter to go forward in a jurisdiction that voted Biden over Trump 9 out of 10 times. Hardly a picture of neutrality and that's not what one calls a jury of your peers.
But back to your specific question, a prosecutor is required to decide what to do about investigations, charges, and prosecutions. It's called prosecutorial discretion. Part of the history of these particular charges is that they were looked at by NY and they were decided to not be pursued. Then the Feds looked at them and decided they wouldn't pursue them. Then, Biden's boy parachutes into Bragg's office (leaving his much more prestigious DOJ position) and suddenly the case is looked at again and the indictment follows. He's been anti-trump for years and he was sent there with an agenda. You're lying to yourself if you think otherwise. Watch what happens down the road. Particularly if Joe wins again, this guy will almost assuredly have a place in a future Biden DOJ or other position.
As to the evidence presented, it's early. I did read that Colangelo referred to Trump and his conspiracy a whole bunch of times in his opening statement. The really odd thing about that is they never charged him with conspiracy in any of the 30 plus counts. Time will tell, but don't kid yourself about the plan and what's going on here.