The Jack Smith smear reveals a larger campaign of corruption and revenge says guest columnist Van Abbott.
by Van AbbottGuest Contributor
When Sen. Eric Schmitt called Jack Smith a “total dirtbag,” he was offering an insult where evidence should have been. Schmitt came to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing prepared for a televised execution. He implied that Smith had lied under oath and secretly met with Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. The centerpiece was a basketball game Schmitt presented as evidence of Smith's deception. Then the basketball game turned out not to be the game Schmitt thought it was. Schmitt claimed Smith had attended an Atlanta Hawks NBA game in Atlanta on February 3, 2024. Smith had actually attended a women's college basketball game between Iowa and Maryland in College Park, Maryland. Schmitt had confused the Hawkeyes with the Hawks. The supposed perjury evidence disappeared with the correction. Schmitt established neither perjury nor conspiracy, nor did he show that Smith's investigation of Donald Trump was corrupt. He called Smith a dirtbag. The strategy was simple: smear, spectacle, retaliation. The charge lands first; evidence… arrives too late. And the victims are not imaginary. David Hearn, a former Olympic canoeist, was charged with felony destruction of government property after being accused of damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Prosecutors later received evidence that the damage resulted from a botched contractor installation. The Justice Department moved to dismiss the case. On October 1, a D.C. judge went further, dismissing it with prejudice and preventing prosecutors from bringing the charge again. The judge cited the “exceptional circumstances” and the government's previous errors. A citizen should not need a judge's permanent protection from a prosecution. The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia is more disturbing still. A federal judge dismissed federal human-smuggling charges after finding that the prosecution was brought to punish Abrego Garcia for successfully challenging his wrongful deportation. The judge described the evidence as reflecting “an abuse of prosecuting power.” These cases involve different people and allegations. But they raise the same question: What happens when challenging the government makes you a target of the government? Law and order means evidence before indictment, due process before punishment and equal justice before political loyalty. It does not mean selecting a target first, constructing a narrative second and searching for a charge last. So why the appetite for vengeance? Look at what it protects. The Trump administration is surrounded by continuing questions about conflicts of interest, presidential self-dealing and the influence of wealthy interests. One example is difficult to dismiss as ordinary political fundraising. In 2025, top purchasers of Trump's $TRUMP cryptocurrency were invited to a private dinner with the president. Unlike conventional campaign contributions, purchases of the Trump-linked cryptocurrency could directly generate profits for Trump.
The person demanding answers becomes the target.
That is not merely access to a politician. It is access connected to an asset from which the president's family profits. And the money-for-access model has continued. In 2026, another Trump-linked crypto venture offered investors who locked up $5 million in tokens for six months in what the company called “guaranteed direct access” to members of its business-development team. But they illustrate why transparency matters when presidential power and private financial interests occupy the same room. The administration's response to criticism has too often been deflection: attack the reporter, attack the watchdog, attack the judge, attack the prosecutor. If the accusation cannot survive scrutiny, change the subject. Questions about power are answered with attacks on the questioner. The investigation becomes the scandal. The investigator becomes the villain. The person demanding answers becomes the target. Corruption and retribution are not separate problems when the machinery of government can be used to distract from questions about how power is being exercised. Each ethics question gets a new enemy. Each demand for accountability becomes “persecution.” Each investigation into presidential conduct becomes an opportunity to investigate the investigator. The result is politics in which spectacle replaces scrutiny and loyalty replaces accountability. Republicans should be campaigning on wages, housing, health care, retirement security and the economic dignity of working Americans. Instead, too much of their political energy is consumed by enemies, insults and investigations of those who challenge the president. Fear is cheaper than governing. So the next time a Republican senator calls someone a dirtbag, listen past the insult. Listen for what it is meant to cover: the unanswered question, the missing evidence, the undisclosed favor, the money changing hands. Because when an insult becomes the evidence, the person being smeared may not be the real target. The real target is accountability itself.
About the author ~
Van Abbott is a long time resident of Alaska and California. He has held financial management positions in government and private organizations in California, Kansas, and Alaska. He is retired and writes Op-Eds as a hobby. He served in the Peace Corps in the late sixties. You can find more of his commentaries and comments on life in America on Substack.
Van Abbott is a long time resident of Alaska and California. He has held financial management positions in government and private organizations in California, Kansas, and Alaska. He is retired and writes Op-Eds as a hobby. He served in the Peace Corps in the late sixties. You can find more of his commentaries and comments on life in America on Substack.
What do you think?
Whether you agree, disagree, or want to build on the ideas in this piece, we’d love to hear your voice. If you have an opinion you’d like to share — on this topic or any other — you can find our submission guidelines here: Sentinel submission guideline. We welcome a wide range of viewpoints and would be glad to consider your perspective for publication on OurSentinel.com. Send your letter or commentary to editor@oursentinel.com and help keep the community conversation moving forward.
Whether you agree, disagree, or want to build on the ideas in this piece, we’d love to hear your voice. If you have an opinion you’d like to share — on this topic or any other — you can find our submission guidelines here: Sentinel submission guideline. We welcome a wide range of viewpoints and would be glad to consider your perspective for publication on OurSentinel.com. Send your letter or commentary to editor@oursentinel.com and help keep the community conversation moving forward.
