Same lawyer has a substack where it seems like he’s talking about all the same stuff here, tl;dr

In my view, the Georgia RICO indictment is gratuitous, self-indulgent, and careless of the appearance of legitimacy. Yes, under current law protected speech acts can be overt acts. But that doesn’t mean a prosecutor should gratuitously include such acts. There are so many arguable crimes that serve as both overt acts and racketeering acts, and so many communications that expressly incorporate fraud and deceit, that it would have been easy to draft an indictment to leave out tweets and speeches and the like. Putting them in seems like leaning into the pro-Trump talking points and accepting accusations of overt political bias.

[Bolding added]

It makes him uneasy as a first amendment defense attorney but it seems like he still thinks it will work

Want youtube?

This one isn’t quite as good at digging into the issues of the indictment, but does talk about how it’s weaker than Jack Smith’s DC indictment.