Schmitt Called Jack Smith a Dirtbag After the Wrong Game

Senator Eric Schmitt tried to place Jack Smith at a basketball game in Atlanta. The hearing then showed that the game in question was not the game Schmitt described.

That should have been the end of the matter. Instead, Schmitt called Smith a “dirtbag.”

The exchange took place during a formal Senate hearing. Schmitt was questioning Smith about his work as special counsel in cases involving former President Donald Trump. He tried to connect Smith to a theory involving prosecutors in Georgia.

The theory rested on a basketball game. Schmitt said messages showed that Smith had attended an Atlanta Hawks game. He tied the game to a time when questions were being raised about the work of Fulton County prosecutors.

Smith said he did not remember being in Atlanta. He also said he did not attend an Atlanta Hawks game.

Later, Smith said he did remember going to a basketball game around that time. It was a women’s college game involving the Iowa Hawkeyes and the University of Maryland. The game was in Maryland, not Atlanta.

The difference is plain. So is the problem with building a serious charge on a mix-up between two teams.

Schmitt’s question was not a casual mistake between friends. It came in a hearing where the senator was pressing Smith about possible false testimony and possible links between prosecutors. The setting gave the claim weight before the facts could catch up with it.

That is why the language matters.

Calling a former special counsel a “dirtbag” may satisfy an audience that already views Smith with anger. It may also make the hearing feel less like a search for facts and more like a contest to damage a person’s name.

There is a place for sharp questions in Congress. Members should test the work of prosecutors. They should ask whether public power was used fairly. They should press witnesses when records do not match their statements.

But the burden rises when the charge is serious. Before accusing a witness of perjury, the basic record has to be right. Before suggesting a secret meeting, the location has to be right. Before using a hearing to shape public belief, the evidence should survive a simple check.

Here, the central fact did not survive that check.

The documented part is narrow. Schmitt attempted to pin Smith to a basketball game in Atlanta. The exchange concerned a theory that linked Smith to other people involved in matters tied to Trump. During the hearing, Schmitt referred to Smith as a “dirtbag.”

The disputed part is the larger meaning Schmitt sought to attach to the game. The hearing did not establish that Smith attended an Atlanta Hawks game. It did not establish that he met with prosecutors in Atlanta. It did not establish that he joined a plan to target Trump.

That does not settle every question about Smith’s work. It does not erase the debate over the special counsel’s investigations. Those issues can be examined through records, court filings and clear questions.

They do not need a wrong basketball team.

The episode also shows how quickly a hearing can move from evidence to theater. A senator may begin with a document, a date and a narrow question. If the facts seem to point in the desired direction, the next step can be a larger claim. Then comes the label.

By the time the error is clear, the label may be what people remember.

That is unfair to the public as much as it is to the witness. People who follow politics are asked to make sense of legal claims that are already hard to track. They should not have to sort through a charge that depends on a mistaken location. They should not have to decide whether an insult carries more force than a correction.

A hearing can be tense without becoming careless. It can be forceful without becoming personal. Those are not high standards. They are the minimum needed when lawmakers question people who held serious public power.

I do not think the lesson is that senators must speak softly. The lesson is that strong language cannot repair weak facts. In this case, it drew attention away from the question Schmitt wanted to ask and toward the mistake that came before it.

Smith’s conduct remains open to public review. So does Schmitt’s use of the Senate’s platform. But the record should come first, and the name-calling should come last, if it comes at all.

A formal hearing can withstand a hard question. It cannot easily withstand a claim that collapses when the teams are read correctly.