Andy McCarthy has an analysis piece up

Yeah, neither of those points is valid.

In the indictment, the prosecution is only required to identify the crime that the person is being charged with. Bragg did. Each count identifies the specific provision of the New York Penal Code that was alleged to be violated, and the specific document or record which the count referred to. That's all you need to do in the indictment. The prosecution doesn't have to, at that point in the proceeding, provide their entire detailed theory of the case.

Second, it's common to the point of ubiquity for prosecutors to include multiple counts of specific acts that are all part of the same scheme. This happens a lot with wire fraud:

While every wire transmission in furtherance of a scheme will not be charged, multiple transmissions usually will, which can look and feel like being charged with the same scheme multiple times. For instance, if someone who is engaged in a fraud scheme calls a co-conspirator to pass along related information, hangs up, then calls that co-conspirator back with additional details, that could be two separate charges for the same scheme.

bowlesrice.com - Wire fraud adds up

What's stopping some red state DA from arresting Mayorkas the second he sets foot there?

Ummmm....the absence of a violation of a specific provision of that state's penal code? Trump is in this pickle in no small part because he decided to falsify the business records documenting the payments to Cohen. That's a criminal act. While we can debate the issues surrounding the charges, I haven't really found anyone seriously arguing that Trump did not, in fact, commit at least a misdemeanor violation of the NYS criminal code. Which is why he is in a position where Bragg can indict him.

Albaby