'Ridiculous!' Nicolle Wallace bursts out laughing at Eric Schmitt's excuse for misfire
Schmitt defended his questioning of Jack Smith after citing the wrong basketball game while accusing Smith of perjury.

SOURCE CHECK
TAP FOR WHYRaw Story is an established digital news outlet with attributed authorship, but its framing here is strongly opinionated and its reporting relies partly on another outlet’s account. The article provides named participants and direct quotations, though it offers limited independent verification or context.
- Source type — An established digital news outlet, but not a newspaper of record or major wire service.
- Editorial standards — The story attributes quotations but uses mocking, strongly evaluative framing.
- Author attribution — The article names an author.
- Transparency — It identifies the speakers and cites MS NOW reporting, but provides little detail for independently checking that reporting.
The article includes direct quotations and identifies the people involved, but largely relays Wallace’s criticism and an attributed report about unnamed Republicans. It gives little independent sourcing, context, or response beyond Schmitt’s brief explanation, and its language is highly evaluative.
HOW WE SCORE ↗Schmitt’s explanation is quoted, but the article is dominated by Wallace’s negative assessment and provides little independent context or a substantive alternative perspective.
- Counterarguments presented — Schmitt’s explanation appears briefly, but is not examined or contextualized further.
- Loaded language — The article uses conspicuously mocking and judgmental language.
- Source diversity — Most of the interpretation comes from Wallace, with a brief reference to unnamed Republicans.
- Omitted context — Offers little independent context about the hearing or how the information was obtained.
The article frames Schmitt’s conduct as a humiliation and gives extensive space to Wallace’s ridicule, with little countervailing context. Its sharply critical language and source selection create a strong tilt against Schmitt.
- Language tone — Uses terms such as “national laughingstock” and “political debacle,” while foregrounding Wallace’s ridicule.
- Source selection — Centers Wallace’s criticism and cites a report about unnamed Republicans who were also critical.
- Framing — Presents Schmitt’s explanation primarily as an excuse for a public failure.
Sen. Eric Schmitt defended his questioning of former special counsel Jack Smith after Schmitt mistakenly cited the wrong basketball game while accusing Smith of perjury. MS NOW host Nicolle Wallace mocked Schmitt’s explanation and reported that some Republicans had warned him to verify the information.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Schmitt tried to accuse Smith of perjury over whether he had attended an Atlanta Hawks game. The article says Smith had attended an Iowa Hawkeyes game in Maryland, and Democrats on the committee pointed out the error. Schmitt later told a TMZ reporter that his question was not a mistake and that he wanted to see whether Smith would answer truthfully.
Wallace laughed at Schmitt’s explanation and called it ridiculous, arguing that basic fact-checking could have avoided the resulting public embarrassment. She also cited MS NOW reporting that some Republicans had warned Schmitt the information was unvetted and needed verification.
Community verdict
7 VOTESCounts every outlet’s report of this story. See all 2
- Readers of left-leaning coverage: 20% good look
- Readers of right-leaning coverage: not enough votes yet
Votes cast on this page
Votes cast on this page: ▲ 0 · ◆ 0 · ▼ 0
People in this story
Senator whose questioning of Jack Smith and subsequent explanation are the focus of the article
Part of a bigger story
2 OUTLETS- ARTICLES
- 2
- OUTLETS
- 2
- AVG CRED
- 66
Discussion · 0
Loading comments…

