Dem
53
Ties
2
GOP
45
Some Senate Republicans are subtly distancing themselves from Donald Trump and MAGA. Others, by contrast, continue to flog the same old conspiracy theories that Trump loves so well. Are they trying to remain in the Dear Leader's good graces? Do they think this will help the Republican Party in November? Do they have a screw loose? Your guess is as good as ours.
Consistent with this, the Senate Judiciary Committee welcomed former special counsel Jack Smith yesterday for a nice 4-hour chat. Smith already talked to the House Judiciary Committee twice—once in December of last year and once in January of this year. However, the Republicans wanted one more bite at the apple before Election Day, in hopes of coming up with some sort of smoking gun, or sound bite, or video clip they could wield in advance of the elections.
The trade-off here is that witnesses who are called before Congressional committees get to make an opening statement. In his statement yesterday, Smith reiterated what he's already told Congress twice. Here's the meat of what he said:
I stand by my decisions as Special Counsel, including my decision to bring charges against President Trump. I made these decisions without regard to President Trump's political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election. Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity. If asked whether to prosecute a former President based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that President was a Republican or a Democrat.
The charges against President Trump were the result of the evidence. Grand juries in two separate districts reached this conclusion based on his actions, as alleged in the indictments they returned. Rather than accept his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results and prevent the lawful transfer of power. The evidence showed that President Trump attempted to induce state officials to ignore true vote counts; to manufacture fraudulent slates of presidential electors in seven states that he had lost; to force his own Vice President to act in contravention of his oath and to instead advance President Trump's personal interests; and, on January 6, 2021, to direct an angry mob to the United States Capitol to obstruct the congressional certification of the presidential election and then exploit the rioters' violence to further delay it. Over 140 heroic law enforcement officers were assaulted that day, a fact we should never forget.
And, as set forth in the original and superseding indictments issued in the Southern District of Florida, President Trump stored classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago social club after he left office in January 2021 and he repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents. Highly sensitive information was held in non-secure locations, including a bathroom and a ballroom where events and gatherings took place. Tens of thousands of people came to the social club during the time period when those classified documents were stored there.
As with my appearances before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, I am prepared to answer your questions truthfully. I stand by my testimony before the House of Representatives. I will not be silenced by the continued threats of prosecution from the President or others.
In short, Smith was able to lay out clearly and concisely that he thinks Donald Trump is a crook, and that multiple grand juries agreed. Presumably Republicans are counting on this to not make an impression, either because Smith has already said the same several times before, or because they hope nobody but political wonks pay attention to opening statements. They may be right about that, although snippets from Smith's remarks were all over social media yesterday.
Once Smith had his opportunity to speak, the members of the Committee got to work. It could not have been clearer that the Republicans on the Committee (most of them, at least) were interested only in insulting Smith and his (former) team, and in desperately trying to contrive a "gotcha" moment. And that pretty much brings us to the utter train wreck that was Sen. Eric Schmitt's (R-MO) line of questioning.
Schmitt came to the hearing with text messages between Smith and his staff, which the Senator blew up and arranged on a pretty posterboard. Schmitt believed that Smith was unaware that he (Schmitt) had the text messages, and he may well have been right about that. The Senator's goal was to "prove" that Smith was part of a grand conspiracy to take Trump down, and in particular that Smith had met with Fulton County DA Fani Willis, so that they could coordinate their attacks on Trump.
The Senator, who clearly has watched too many episodes of Matlock or Perry Mason, presented his general suspicions, and then began laying his trap for Smith, springing this question from out of the blue: "Did you go to an NBA game between the Golden State Warriors and the Atlanta Hawks on February 3, 2024?" Smith was clearly caught unaware (delighting Schmitt), and asked for the question to be repeated. After hearing the query a second time, Smith stuttered a bit as he tried to make sense of what was going on, and said that he did not recall having been in Atlanta during his time as special counsel, and that if he was, it would only have been to pass through the airport. He also said that he definitely never attended an Atlanta Hawks game.
This was Schmitt's moment of triumph. Thrilled that Smith had fallen into his grasp, the Senator unveiled his posterboard, which showed text messages between Smith and his staff about basketball tickets for February 3, 2024, confirming that Smith would be sitting in Section 109 Row 1. Schmitt was fairly aglow as he smirked and declared that Smith had just perjured himself before Congress. He also slurred Smith as a "total dirtbag."
It pretty much all went to hell in a handbasket from there. The posterboard was on display for less than 3 seconds, which made it hard for Smith to respond, and which suggests that maybe Schmitt knew he was pulling a fast one. In any event, Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN) was the next Senator to be allotted speaking time. And with her help, and the return of the posterboard, Smith was able to figure out what actually happened. He was telling the truth about not having gone to a Hawks game. In fact, the tickets were for an Iowa Hawkeyes game. That was when Caitlin Clark was on the team, and so their games were the hottest item in town. And while the Hawks play in Atlanta, the Hawkeyes were playing in Maryland, more than 500 miles away from Fani Willis, wherever she might have been that night.
The video of the encounter is all over the Internet already. Readers should really consider watching it for themselves, particularly if they would like to see a United States senator hoisted by his own petard. The most important part of the video is the first 2 minutes or so; Schmitt's "triumph" comes at 1:51. Or, you can watch the full 7 minutes (and change) and see Amy Klobuchar (and Smith) cut Schmitt down to size:
There is, by the way, no doubt that Schmitt was wrong. The Hawks play at State Farm Arena, which assigns letters to rows, rather than numbers. In other words, there is no "Section 109, Row 1" at that venue—not now, and not back in 2024. However, there is a "Section 109, Row 1" at Xfinity Center, where Maryland plays its home games.
So, what are the ramifications here, other than an awful lot of schadenfreude? Well, it's at least possible that such an embarrassing mistake could stick to Trump and the Republicans in 2026, and hurt their electoral prospects a little. It might even come back to haunt Schmitt in 2028, when he's next up for reelection. On top of that, it's very possible this is the end of the Jack Smith shenanigans. The Republicans have gotten nothing useful out of Mr. Imperturbable, and they will probably lose control of the House (and its committees) in November, and may also lose control of the Senate (and its committees). Finally, it's proof-of-concept for why Anthony Fauci was right to plead the Fifth in response to every question, and why any other people called in for one of these sham "investigations" would be wise to do the same. (Z)