Sen. Eric Schmitt's questioning of former Special Counsel Jack Smith at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing has drawn a wave of criticism from commentators and social media accounts, who describe the exchange as a failed attempt to catch Smith in a contradiction and are using it to amplify broader allegations of political weaponization at the Justice Department.
The account @amuse posted a video clip of the exchange along with the claim that "Jack Smith spied on Republican donors, nonprofits, reporters, Members of Congress, and Trump's family - thousands of Americans were caught in his lawless dragnet." In the clip, Schmitt presses Smith on his appointment and conduct, saying at one point, "You're unconstitutionally appointed. You breached the 60-day rule releasing this very partisan attack against the president right before the election. You tampered with evidence in the Mar-a-Lago case that you admitted to in court filings. You subpoenaed members of Congress and their phone records in violation of the Constitution of current statutes. You didn't even let the court know that these were members of Congress."
In the same clip, Schmitt asks Smith whether he was ever confirmed by the Senate, and Smith replies that he was never confirmed. Schmitt then asks who swore Smith in as special prosecutor, and Smith says he does not recall. Schmitt also presses Smith on the volume of evidence in the case, saying, "Millions of pages?" Smith responds that he does not recall the exact figure. Schmitt follows up by describing a figure of thirteen million pages and breaking it down: "What if we break that down per hour? It's 4,166 per minute, 70 pages. Do you read 70 pages a minute?" Smith answers, "I do not."
Schmitt continues, asking, "Is it that if you get a traffic ticket in Washington, D.C., you're not going to trial in five months, but you want the president, the former president of the United States, to have a trial date with 13 million pages of documents within five months?" He asks Smith, "How are we to assume otherwise, that this wasn't political? Because it absolutely was, sir."
The Atlantic's account, @TheAtlantic, framed the exchange differently, posting that "Eric Schmitt's attempted gotcha of former Special Counsel Jack Smith failed spectacularly—but in Schmitt's MAGA bubble, there's no such thing as a gaffe, @helenlewis argues." Several other outlets have picked up the same thread. The New Republic published a piece titled "Eric Schmitt's a Joke. The Assaults on Jack Smith Are Anything But," describing the Missouri senator and other Republicans as having made fools of themselves during the hearing.
Other coverage has focused on a specific element of Schmitt's presentation: an apparent mix-up involving a basketball game. Headlines from Raw Story and others describe Schmitt attempting to catch Smith out using text messages concerning a claim that Smith attended an Atlanta Hawks basketball game in Georgia on February third, 2024. One image description accompanying that coverage shows Schmitt looking at posters with seat numbers of a women's basketball game. Comedian Jimmy Kimmel, according to coverage, roasted Schmitt after what was described as the senator accidentally exposing Smith as a Caitlin Clark fan during the attempted takedown, with the account @amuse and others continuing to circulate the weaponization claim separately from the basketball dispute.
The criticism has since extended beyond the hearing itself. Raw Story reported that Schmitt pulled out of a scheduled television appearance as embarrassing details about the episode continued to surface, citing the Daily Beast. Another outlet described the same development as Schmitt bailing on a TV show after what it called a humiliating self-own, noting that he skipped a high-profile appearance hours after the failed attempt to get Smith to perjure himself during the contentious hearing.
The accounts carrying the story span a range of audiences. @amuse has framed the episode around allegations that Smith's investigative reach extended to Republican donors, nonprofits, reporters, members of Congress and Trump family members, describing the total as thousands of Americans caught in what the account calls a lawless dragnet. @TheAtlantic has framed it around Schmitt's conduct in the hearing room. Outlets including The New Republic, Raw Story and others have focused on the collapse of the specific gotcha attempt and its aftermath, while the late-night commentary has centered on the basketball detail in particular.
Next News Network could not independently verify the claims that Smith surveilled Republican donors, nonprofits, reporters, members of Congress or Trump family members, nor the claim that thousands of Americans were caught in such an effort. Those assertions are being made by @amuse and others and have not been confirmed by this outlet. The exchange between Schmitt and Smith itself is captured on video and quoted above as it appears in that clip. It is not yet known whether Schmitt or his office intends to respond further to the criticism, or whether additional hearings or appearances related to the matter are planned.
The dispute over Smith's appointment and the scope of his investigation has been a recurring theme among critics of the special counsel's office, who argue the prosecution was politically motivated from the outset. Schmitt's line of questioning echoed those arguments directly, tying the appointment process, the volume of documents and the timing of the release to a broader claim of partisanship. Supporters of the special counsel's office have rejected that characterization, and the hearing exchange has become the latest flashpoint in that ongoing argument.
Our Take
The left is having a field day over a basketball mix-up and a TV cancellation, because that is all they have left. What they are not addressing is the substance of what Schmitt put on the record: an unconfirmed appointment, a subpoena of members of Congress without notice to the court, and a document dump measured in the millions of pages with a trial schedule to match. That is not a gaffe. That is the case.
The coordinated mockery from late-night hosts and legacy outlets is designed to do one thing: make sure you remember the punchline and forget the questions. Jack Smith never answered who swore him in. He never produced a verified page count. He never explained the timing of the release. Those are the facts voters should be carrying out of that hearing room, not whatever Kimmel said about Caitlin Clark.
