Separately, to the extent the Special Counsel demands an anticipatory finalization of jury
instructions prior to trial, prior to a charge conference, and prior to the presentation of trial defenses
and evidence, the Court declines that demand as unprecedented and unjust [see ECF No. 428].
The Court’s Order soliciting preliminary draft instructions on certain counts should not be
misconstrued as declaring a final definition on any essential element or asserted defense in this
case. Nor should it be interpreted as anything other than what it was: a genuine attempt, in the
context of the upcoming trial, to better understand the parties’ competing positions and the
questions to be submitted to the jury in this complex case of first impression [ECF No. 407]. As always, any party remains free to avail itself of whatever appellate options it sees fit to invoke, as
permitted by law.

Did Jack Smith "demand"? I don't think so but I'll have to read it again. "Unprecedented and unjust". That is odd language. A JUDGE feeling a LAWYER is being "unjust" in his treatment of HER. She feels she's being victimized. She's defensive, chastened and hysterical, that's what it is. That is the last paragraph in the Order. She appended that "Separately". She's embarrassed, feeling insecure and anxious, and reacting hysterically.

I'm going to look for "demand" in Smith's Response now. If it's not there, what I have written above cubed.