Page 15,  GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSED MOTION TO ENSURE THAT EXTRAJUDICIAL
STATEMENTS DO NOT PREJUDICE THESE PROCEEDINGS

The Government seeks a narrow, well-defined restriction that is targeted at extrajudicial
statements that present a serious and substantial danger of materially prejudicing this case. The
Government’s proposed order specifies that such statements would include (a) statements
regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses; and (b) statements about
any party, witness, attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and
inflammatory, or intimidating. 

###

 (a) is not a problem. (b) however, imo, is void for vagueness. How (b) can be considered "narrow and well-defined" is beyond me. Well-define "disparaging and inflammatory". "Intimidating" (or intimidating, so "disparaging and inflammatory" are one, intimidating is another.) is better defined. I'm surprised that Smith specifically mentions, inter alia, Trumpie's "Deranged" nickname for him. It's disparaging and inflammatory. Could Trumpie come up with a nickname that would be disparaging or inflammatory but not both? This is the kind of b.s. parsing that Smith is asking Judge Chutkan to engage in. To be a prosecutor is to be disparaged; if I wasn't disparaged I wondered why not? What could I do to get disparaged? (I usually found something). Only point is that if I was Judge Chutkan I'd want Smith to put some flesh on these bones.