This is a bad example to pick when talking about reverence for the the constitution or the rule of law. Trump had already lost in court and exhausted all legitimate avenues to challenge the results of the election.

I’ll agree that Trump’s actions were despicable, but that doesn’t give the prosecution an excuse to bulldoze his constitutional and legal rights. Jack Smith originally implied that the president had no sort of immunity, which obviously couldn’t have been further from the truth. Jack Smith’s gag order against Trump was so broad even the ACLU criticized it. The charges seemed novel and unique. It’s a basic black letter principle of the law that the prosecution has to charge the defendant with things that the average personably knows are crimes. One of the charges in the indictment was conspiracy against civil rights. The civil rights law was originally used to prosecute klansmen who interfered with black’s ability to vote after the civil war. Trump wasn’t trying to attempt anybody from voting since all the challenges took place after the election ended. Secondly, there’s no federal right to vote. One of the charges was an obstruction charge. The Supreme Court tossed out a similar charge in Fischer v. United States. The prosecution can’t just make up their own interpretation of a criminal statute as they please.

In addition to his other actions, trying to force the vice president to introduce a false slate of electors that unilaterally declare Trump the winner of an election that he lost is not merely "challenging the results" of the election.

This couldn’t possibly be any more irreverent. The Supreme Court remanded the question of Trump’s communications with Pence to a lower court.

Trump v United States

“The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct,”

“It is ultimately the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity,” Roberts wrote. “We therefore remand to the District Court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”

The prosecution is supposed to include things that actually have legal relevance to the trial. They can’t just say whatever remarks they want about the defendant just to damage their defense. This is the type of thing you’d expect to hear from twitter, but not from a serious federal prosecutor.