OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Sen. Schmitt's Hawks-Hawkeyes Blunder at Jack Smith Hearing Draws Fallout

8 sources · updated 2026-10-02
Left 33% Center 33% Right 33%
1 left · 1 center · 1 right

What happened

On Tuesday, Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) questioned former special counsel Jack Smith before the Senate Judiciary Committee about Smith's whereabouts on Feb. 3, 2024. Schmitt displayed a poster board with text messages, a reserved seat listed as "109 Row 1," and images of Smith, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, prosecutor Nathan Wade, and Atlanta's State Farm Arena, and asked whether Smith had attended that night's Atlanta Hawks–Golden State Warriors NBA game, suggesting Smith had traveled to Georgia in connection with Willis's racketeering prosecution of Donald Trump. Smith said he recalled attending a University of Maryland versus Iowa women's basketball game featuring Caitlin Clark in College Park, Maryland, around that time, that Justice Department records could corroborate his attendance, and that he did not meet with Willis or Wade. The Hawks hosted the Warriors at 7:30 p.m. in Atlanta while Iowa played Maryland at 8 p.m.; Schmitt warned Smith not to perjure himself, later said "I think you've already perjured yourself," and called Smith a "total dirtbag." After the hearing, Schmitt said there was "not a mistake," that his job "is to ask questions," and that the only NBA or NCAA men's game with a 7:30 tipoff that night was in Atlanta; text messages obtained by The Hill did not reference basketball team names.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 3 articles

2 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 2 of 3
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Sen. Eric Schmitt and Eric Schmitt
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 1 of 3
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: text messages
Credits another outlet 0 of 3
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 3
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 1, 20:10 UTC by The Hill, naming its source. First document in the first report, from The Hill (text messages).
Not counted 0
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage never mentions that Schmitt accused Smith of perjury while pressing him on the game. That charge appears only in right-leaning coverage, where Washington Examiner has him saying he thinks Smith has already perjured himself. Left-leaning write-ups in The Hill instead track a team mix-up, Democratic blowback, and game-day staff texts that named no teams. Left-leaning coverage leads with the fumble and with Raskin saying Schmitt has "basically disgraced himself." Right-leaning coverage opens on Schmitt's defense that he did not mix up the games and reaches the Hawks-Hawkeyes confusion only after the Atlanta theory. Did anyone check the Justice Department records Smith said would confirm he was in Maryland that night?
Bottom line

You can read The Hill on Schmitt's basketball fumble and never learn he accused Jack Smith of perjury in that same round of questions.

The receipts — 4 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Schmitt ended the exchange by calling Smith a total dirtbag official statementin Washington Examiner · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Smith testified he did not meet with Fani Willis or Nathan Wade official statementin Washington Examiner · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Schmitt's poster board showed a seat reserved as 109 Row 1 numberin Washington Examiner · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Smith's staff texts did not reference any basketball team names contextin The Hill · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets and Democratic officials treated the exchange as a factual collapse that undercut a perjury accusation. Rep. Jamie Raskin said Schmitt "basically disgraced himself." Sen. Amy Klobuchar said people "should have their facts straight before they accuse someone of being a dirtbag and not get the teams wrong," and later that Schmitt should not "call someone a dirtbag when you don't have your own facts right." The Hill reported that Smith's staff texts never referenced any basketball team names, "adding to the confusion around why" Schmitt "errantly accused the prosecutor of attending a game in Atlanta."
The Right View
Schmitt and right-leaning coverage rejected the mix-up label. Schmitt told TMZ, "There's not a mistake," and said he asked if Smith was in Atlanta because "the only NCAA men's game or NBA game with a 7:30 tipoff was in Atlanta." He joked to CNN, "Who knew Jack Smith was a Caitlin Clark fan?" He said he had presented texts about Smith wanting to meet people "that could have obviously been related to the prosecution that was coordinated with his office in Atlanta." The Washington Examiner framed the line of questioning as part of Republican scrutiny of whether Smith's federal investigation coordinated with Willis's Georgia case.
Our Take (balanced)
The left's strongest argument is the mismatch between charge and evidence: the cited texts named no team, two games tipped off around the same hour, and Schmitt still accused Smith of perjury and labeled him a "total dirtbag," which Democrats present as the accusation outrunning the record. The right's strongest argument is Schmitt's stated basis for the question—a 7:30 tipoff in Atlanta plus texts he said concerned meetings that "could have obviously been related" to coordination with the Georgia prosecution—and that Smith confirmed he attended a basketball game that night. The central unresolved tension is whether identifying the Hawks rather than the Hawkeyes was fatal to a perjury claim, or incidental to a whereabouts inquiry whose real issue, possible Georgia contacts, Smith denied.

8 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.