Seen on the inter webs with respect to CC1 through CC6:
« You can’t call it a witch-hunt when it’s your own monkeys giving the evidence. »
Rudy does still have a job.
“Celebrated by many as “Mayor of the World,” Rudy Giuliani provides a resolute voice in tackling the toughest domestic and international issues of our time”
Be seeing you… 
RE Clarence Thomas:
No doubt, with the current congress, but that didn’t stop us with Trump, twice, and it shouldn’t with Thomas. Dems in the House should definitely file articles of impeachment, even if there aren’t enough votes to convict or remove him. Because he’s the most corrupt justice in more than a century, and because it’s the Right Thing to do.
This should be a gift link to the annotated indictment.
It was all the way at the bottom rather than at the top of the article. I spent some time looking for it but knew it had to be there! Sorry it took so long but I worked a 12 hour day today. 
Thanks for finding and posting it.
I’ll add my thanks too, Kolak. It is much appreciated!
Okay, it took me a while, but I made my way through @Kolak_of_Twilo 's annotated indictment. (Thank you again.)
My gosh, Jack Smith has sewn everything up tightly. Of course. Trump and his team will defend it, as they should. But Smith’s allegations seem to be idiot-proof. It seems to me that all the Trump team can do now is file motions to delay. Which I hope are not granted.
Interesting interview between Trump’s attorney and NPR:
“When you look at this indictment, it doesn’t really say much other than President Trump was exercising his right to talk about the issues and advocate politically for his belief that the election was stolen and was improperly run. He got advice from counsel — very, very wise and learned counsel — on a variety of constitutional and legal issues. So, it’s a very straightforward defense that he had every right to advocate for a position that he believed in and his supporters believed in.”
I’m dubious. After all, the following is speech:
I have a gun. Put all of the cash from the drawers into the burlap sack – NO dye packs. Also get everybody’s watches, rings, cell phones, and jewelry and throw THOSE into the bags, too.
But I have a feeling that – like so many kinds of “speech --” it’s also a criminal act when you hand that note to a bank teller.
IANAL, so I could be way off base here
The part that seems the most damning to me is the stuff around the fake electors. The indictment makes it clear that:
- Trump et al told the electors they’d be brought into play in one set of circumstances, and then brought them into play in another.
- Trump was told repeatedly that this might be illegal (an “untested legal theory” means “we’re not sure if this is a felony,” and I don’t think that’s a real defense).
- Trump lied to various state and federal officials about the fake electors in an effort to get them to take illegal actions.
- Trump said that the fraud he claimed he was the victim of changed the rules–as if the law made his illegal acts legal.
Even if he sincerely believed that he’d been cheated out of the election, his acts here were clear and deliberate lies.
Trump’s attorney can attempt to make that argument but it won’t fly. Smith anticipated and preempts 1st Amendment arguments right at the beginning of the indictment where he said the Defendant has the Constitutional right to lie about winning the election, but makes clear he’s not being charged for speech, but rather, for his actions.
As noted in post 428, Judge Chutkan has experience with Trump’s tactics.
smith is going with the “i didn’t call you stupid; your actions were stupid” argument. in this case “your speech was not criminal; your actions were criminal”.
as i mentioned above, they changed the language for the pa electors, but didn’t want other electors to use it. they would not be able to use the “alternative electors” if they had the pa language.
It’s difficult to understand or imagine the Venn Diagram of Federal vs. State (RICO) charges where the election interference crimes are concerned – which crimes could be charged by which group for which facts.
State crimes won’t be pardonable by a Republican President, so it’s easy for me to hope that Fani Willis and Jack Smith ARE coordinating closely, and not just on dates.
If Willis can put a very strong and winnable RICO case together that indicts All Those MFers who were even tangentially involved in the false electors scam, she may very well get the active assistance OF the Feds to prosecute that case.
IOW, maybe Jack Smith is keeping HIS indictments narrow and simple because what he does is vulnerable to a pardon where what Georgia could do is subject to pardon rules that are far less favorable to Trump.
Jack Smith has asked for a meeting to discuss a possible conflict re: the person who is acting as defense attorney for Nauta and is also representing people who might testify against him. IANAL, but it looks like (If I’m reading this properly) Smith is being careful about eliminating possible grounds for an appeal down the road. I have to assume that Trump’s group of lawyers knew this might be an issue and planted it as a possible land mine down the road. Or it’s nothing? Or they’re really that incompetent?
Other examples of non-protected speech are in this article: ‘It’s nonsense, it’s garbage’: Trump’s latest felony defense demolished by former FBI official.
“Think of it this way: speech designed to commit a crime, speech designed to commit a fraud is not First Amendment protected speech. If I lie on my tax return, that is speech, but it is not protected by the First Amendment.”
“Willie, if you and I are running a Ponzi scheme, and we solicit money from Joe and Mika and tell them we’re going to invest it in our investment fund and, instead, we buy a boat, and an island and minor league baseball team, that is not First Amendment protected speech,” he elaborated. “That’s a crime.”
“Instructing a witness to destroy documents is speech, but it’s not protected by the First Amendment,” he added.
“It’s executive privilege.”
“It’s attorney-client privilege.”
“It’s protected by the First Amendment.”
They’re lining them up like cans on a fence to be legally knocked down.
Here’s one of his “issues”:
I see it differently. Trump is providing his co-defendant a lawyer to control him. Smith wants him to have truly independent counsel, who would probably immediately tell him to start cooperating like a motherfucker.