U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt's attempt to pull a 'got'cha' on Jack Smith blows up spectacularly, turning the senator into an internet punching bag and making Smith's claims against Donald Trump look airtight

(ABC News)

Jack Smith has appeared before Congress so many times that it has become almost impossible to trip him up. U..S. Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO), an ardent believer in Donald Trump's desire to see Smith punished for  having the president indicted twice, learned that lessen the hard way yesterday at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A mix-up about two basketball games, of all things, blew up in Schmitt's face, turning him into the butt of jokes across the web. Some observers even suggested the fiasco might cause the possibility of Schmitt becoming J.D. Vance's 2028 running mate to disappear into the ether. The hearing presented journalists with all kinds of sidebars and camera angles, and in a jointly published article at CNN and Yahoo! News, Aaron Blake sorts through them under the headline "An embarrassing moment for the GOP, a confident witness, and other takeaways from Jack Smith's hearing." Blake writes:

Special counsel Jack Smith, who brought two indictments against now-President Donald Trump in 2023, testified in front of Congress again on Tuesday — this time, to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Smith's testimony comes as Republicans continue to probe the investigations into Trump and as some in the party, including the president, have pushed for often-unspecified criminal charges to be brought against Smith.

Here are the major takeaways from Tuesday's hearing.

An embarrassing episode epitomizes the GOP's failures to pin down Smith

Republicans have struggled mightily to substantiate Trump's desire for Smith to be charged criminally (maybe that's because they have no case against Smith, under the law). But rarely has it seemed to backfire like it did Tuesday. 

Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri crafted an apparent conspiracy theory about Smith being tied to the prosecution of Trump in Fulton County, Georgia. To substantiate his theory, Schmitt cited text messages he suggested showed Smith had been at an Atlanta Hawks game on February 3, 2024 – the day after Fulton County prosecutor Fani Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade admitted to an affair.

Smith appeared dumbfounded, though. He denied going to a Hawks game and said he had no recollection of even being in Atlanta.

"What would you say if I had a series of text messages from your team that said you were in Atlanta at a Warriors-Hawks game on February 3, 2024 – the day after Willis and Wade announced their affair?" Schmitt said.

Schmitt went big on the allegation, telling Smith, "I don't think you know that we have this stuff." He urged Smith not to "perjure yourself." He called Smith a "dirtbag." He later told the "Charlie Kirk Show" that he was just asking questions and seeing whether Smith would ensnare himself.

Committee Democrats helped produce evidence that gave Smith some idea of what Schmitt was trying to get at -- and that allowed Smith to let the air out of Schmitt's "got'cha" balloon, Blake reports:

Eventually, Democrats got Schmitt to allow Smith to actually review the evidence – a poster featuring the texts in question. In one of them, a fellow prosecutor asks about a seat being reserved for Smith. The poster showed the Atlanta Hawks' arena.

But by this point, Smith seemed to put it together. He said he was not at a game featuring the Atlanta Hawks, but rather the University of Iowa Hawkeyes women's basketball team – which then featured Caitlin Clark – at the University of Maryland in the Washington, DC, area.

Smith's recollection matches up with a game played that day. 

It turns out that Schmitt and his staff did a poor job of research in preparation for the hearing. Blake writes. That provides evidence that any case the GOP might try to concoct against Smith is likely to be built from extremely thin gruel. It makes you wonder how Schmitt ever managed to become attorney general of Missouri, not to mention a U.S. senator. Both positions appear to require a keen intellect that Schmitt does not seem to possess. Blake writes:

Behind the scenes, a source familiar with how Schmitt got it wrong told CNN the Republican senator checked what men's college and NBA games were scheduled that day and found only the Atlanta Hawks set to play — but he failed to consider that Smith may have been at a women's basketball game.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, after clearing up the matter, said Schmitt should apologize.

Instead, he laughed it off, telling CNN later Tuesday: "Who knew Jack Smith was a Caitlan Clark fan?"

The Republican defended his pointed line of questioning, saying, "That's what these hearings are for. You ask questions, you get answers. You know, Jack Smith has perjured himself before, but if he says he's at the game, maybe he's a Caitlin Clark fan. We'll accept that."

At the hearing, he maintained that the texts "could have obviously been related to the prosecution" in Fulton County. He said he stood by calling Smith a "dirtbag."

The scene epitomized how speculative and thinly constructed the GOP's allegations about Smith, Trump's foes and about the justice system being weaponized against Trump have been. Likewise, the GOP's other major perjury allegation against Smith rests on a complete misreading of the evidence.

But rarely has this apparent fishing expedition been laid so bare. Schmitt seemed to firmly believe he had nailed Smith on something. But just minutes later, it fell apart – and rather spectacularly so. 

Smith has often seemed detached when jousting with members of Congress. But Blake notes that he has taken on a more human and approachable persona in such situations, and that might help swing public opinion to his side:

Smith was more animated than at an earlier hearing

Smith is a very careful witness. He often pauses noticeably before answering a question — in a way that can be a little jarring.

But he's also made clear that he wants to fight back against the Trump administration's weaponization of the justice system against people like him. And on Tuesday, he was a little more animated and open.

He punctuated his opening statement by saying, "Fear may be contagious; courage is as well."

He also called it an "outrage" that people he worked with were "targeted illegally, lost their jobs illegally, and had their lives turned upside down by this Department of Justice."

When asked about the Supreme Court's 2024 ruling conferring presidents with a large degree of immunity, Smith said it "can be very dangerous to the rule of law" for powerful people to benefit from such exceptions.

Samuel Alito, with his investment portfolio under intense scrutiny, recuses himself from major climate-change case that could impact the fossil fuel industry

(WMUR-TV, Facebook)

In yesterday's post we outlined signs that the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is a "dysfunctional mess" -- and that is a kind descriptive; a better, and more blunt, term is "corrupt." How did we reach this conclusion? It grew from our analysis of a ruling the high court issued last Friday in a case styled Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters.

What did SCOTUS do to draw our ire? It granted authority over U.S. midterms to president Donald Trump that the law does not allow. Does this raise the specter of Trump trying to rig midterms? The answer is yes, it already has. The Democracy Docket website, headed by Democratic Party election lawyer Marc Elias, wrote an article earlier this month under the headline "Here is Trump's blueprint to rig the 2026 midterms. How's that for subtlety?

Today, we have more news that suggests the nation's highest court, with all of its pomp and circumstance, is a morass, a cesspool, a quagmire, a . . . well, you get the idea. The news comes to us via a jointly published article at Forbes and Yahoo! News under the headline "Samuel Alito recuses from major Supreme Court case after Fossil Fuel Investments come under fire." Alison Durkee writes: 

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito will not hear an upcoming environmental case, the court told lawyers Monday, unexpectedly making the move following pressure to recuse from the case over concerns he could use it to boost his own investments in the oil and gas industry. 

The Supreme Court's clerk wrote to lawyers in the case, Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, on Monday, informing them that Alito "has determined that he will not continue to participate in this case."

The case, for which the court will hear oral arguments on Oct. 5, concerns questions over whether lawsuits can be brought in state court that seek to hold fossil fuel companies liable for the impacts of climate change.  

Watchdog and left-leaning groups have been urging Alito to recuse himself in the case, pointing to the justice's significant investments in oil, gas, and energy companies that would benefit from a Supreme Court ruling making it harder for such companies to be held liable.

Has Alito done anything wrong in the Suncor case? Has he violated ethics rules, engaged in possible criminal conduct? Based on information we have so far, the answer is no. But that does not mean Alito, who answers to the title "Your Honor," has acted honorably. He did not reach the decision to recuse on his own; it came only after advocacy groups put pressure on him. And as Durkee notes, his initial reaction was to dilly-dally around the edges of the standard for recusal that applies to all federal judges:

Alito had so far refused to recuse himself from the case because he doesn't hold investments in the two companies directly involved in the lawsuit, Suncorp Energy and Exxon Mobil, with a spokesperson for the court previously telling NBC News that Alito "does not have a financial interest in any party" involved in the case and was advised by legal counsel that "his recusal is not required."

That, however, is not the standard -- as Alito surely knows. The issue is covered under 28 U.S. Code 455, which holds "Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

Alito might not have a financial interest in the parties involved, but that is not the issue here. He has been investing long enough and his returns have been lucrative enough to give him the portfolio of a serious investor. Forbes values Alito's net worth at approximately $10 million, making him the second-richest justice on the court behind Chief Justice John Roberts A report at Mother Jones gives an idea of the oil and gas-related wealth Alito has accumulated:

Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito gained up to $2.9 million from his fossil fuel interests between 2005 and 2024, a new review of financial disclosures shows.

The analysis from the nonprofit advocacy group and judicial watchdog Court Accountability, shared exclusively with the Guardian, found that even at the lowest range of estimates, Alito gained almost $400,000 from his oil and gas interests since being tapped for the high court by George W. Bush in 2005 and joining the court in 2006.

In short, Alito's financial interest goes to the entire fossil-fuel industry, not just any two parties to a case. That's why he should have known, in the interests of justice, his recusal was required. Durkee provides more insight into Alito's financial interests as they relate to fossil-fuel companies:

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Suncorp Energy on Oct. 5. It's unclear when the court could issue its final ruling, but it will likely be in a few months, and will come out before the court's term ends in late June 2027. The court's ruling will not directly hold Suncorp and Exxon liable for any impact on climate change, but will rather more broadly determine whether such lawsuits can be brought in state court to begin with.

The big number here is $175,000. That's roughly how much Alito has in investments in the fossil-fuel industry, with financial disclosures showing he has  between $175,00 and $575,000 in returns. The justice holds investments in ConocoPhillips, Woodside Energy Group, and AES Corp that were each valued at up to $15,000, his disclosures covering his 2025 finances show, and investments in Phillips 66, OGE Energy Corp, Black Hills Corp, BHP Group, and Fortis Inc that were each valued between $15,001 and $50,000. Alito and his wife also own a mineral interest in land in Grady County, Oklahoma, valued between $100,001 and $250,000, according to his disclosures. The Alitos reportedly receive a percentage of oil and gas sales made off of fossil fuels that are extracted on their land. Alito has long held interests in fossil fuel companies, including at one point holding Exxon stock, and an analysis of his financial disclosures by judicial watchdog group Court Accountability found the justice has made up to $2.9 million off his fossil fuel investments between 2005 and 2024 alone.

All of this raises an important question: Is it OK for Supreme Court justices to own stocks? The answer is yes, Durkee reports:

There is no prohibition on Supreme Court justices owning individual stocks, though financial disclosures suggest Alito and Roberts are the only ones that do. Ethics guidelines direct justices to recuse from any cases in which they have a financial interest, but there have been a number of instances in which justices have—often inadvertently—failed to properly recuse. Justices do not face any clear penalties for not recusing, as unlike lower-court judges, Supreme Court justices are encouraged to follow ethical guidelines but do not face any consequences if they refuse. This is not the first time Alito's stock holdings have raised scrutiny, as the justice has also faced controversies like a disclosure showing he sold shares of Anheuser-Busch in Aug. 2023. That was around the time the company came under fire for partnering with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, Law Dork first noted, raising questions over whether the justice participated in a right-wing boycott against Bud Light.

It probably has not helped Alito's cause that he has been involved in a number of ethics-related dustups in recent years. It seems safe to say that advocacy groups on the left are not fond of Alito's conservative views and put a close watch on his activities. From the Forbes/Yahoo! article:

Alito's decision to recuse comes as the conservative-leaning justice has faced increasing scrutiny in recent years over potential ethics issues. Alito came under fire following reports in 2024 on him and his wife flying flags outside their home associated with the "Stop the Steal" movement, for instance, and The New York Times reported in 2022 that a conservative activist knew the ruling in 2014's Burwell v. Hobby Lobby before it came out after dining with the Alitos, raising speculation over whether the justice had leaked the ruling. Alito has denied any wrongdoing and has railed against the ethics criticism he's received, including by penning a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled "ProPublica Misleads Its Readers" in 2023 before the outlet reported he took a luxury fishing trip with billionaire Paul Singer without disclosing it. The Supreme Court has faced a series of broader ethics concerns in recent years that have sparked a push by Democrats to impose a binding code of ethics on the court. Republicans have broadly opposed Democrats' efforts in Congress, however, and the court has declined to impose its own ethical code.

The Alito contretemps is not the only recent example of financial chicanery tied to a Supreme Court justice. We will report on another one in an upcoming post, and it makes you wonder if anyone on the court -- aside from the three liberals -- acts with any integrity.