Before the Missouri Board of Cosmetology and Barber Examiners In the Matter of the Application of Eric Schmitt for Licensure as a United States Senator Docket No. 2026-09-30-SEN-001
HEARING OFFICER: Good morning. This is the public hearing on the application of Eric Schmitt for licensure as a United States Senator from the State of Missouri. The applicant is present. Mr. Schmitt, you have filed a sworn statement that you meet the qualifications set forth in the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 3, Clause 3. Is that correct?
APPLICANT SCHMITT: Yes, Your Honor. I am thirty years of age, I have been nine years a citizen of the United States, and I am an inhabitant of the State for which I am chosen.
HEARING OFFICER: Very well. The board has no authority to add to or subtract from those three qualifications. However, the board does have a statutory obligation to verify that applicants for other licensed occupations in this state are possessed of the requisite skill and knowledge. In the interest of fairness, we have elected to conduct a voluntary competency review of your application. This hearing is not adversarial. It is merely an opportunity for the board to observe your investigative technique and to ensure that you are not a danger to the public.
APPLICANT SCHMITT: I appreciate that, Your Honor. I am a former attorney general of this state. I know how to ask questions.
HEARING OFFICER: So noted. Let us begin. On September 29, 2026, you questioned a witness before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee regarding his attendance at a sporting event. You produced an exhibit purporting to show that the witness was in Atlanta, Georgia, on February 3, 2024, attending a game between the Atlanta Hawks and the Golden State Warriors. Is that correct?
APPLICANT SCHMITT: Yes. I had text messages from his team confirming he was there.
HEARING OFFICER: And did you, at any point prior to presenting this exhibit, verify which sporting events were scheduled on that date?
APPLICANT SCHMITT: I did. My staff checked the men’s college and NBA schedules.
HEARING OFFICER: And did you consider that the witness might have attended a women’s basketball game?
APPLICANT SCHMITT: I did not.
HEARING OFFICER: The witness, in fact, attended the University of Iowa Hawkeyes women’s basketball game at the University of Maryland in College Park, Maryland, on February 3, 2024. The final score was Iowa 93, Maryland 85. Senator Amy Klobuchar entered the result into the record. Did you accept that correction?
APPLICANT SCHMITT: I did. I said, “Who knew Jack Smith was a Caitlin Clark fan?”
HEARING OFFICER: That is not an acceptance. That is a deflection. Let us turn to your methodology. You stated, “I don’t think you know that we have this stuff. So I’ll give you a second to process it, so you don’t, you know, perjure yourself.” Did you, at any point, consider that the witness might not have been in Atlanta?
APPLICANT SCHMITT: I considered that he might lie.
HEARING OFFICER: And did you consider that the date on your own exhibit might be incorrect?
APPLICANT SCHMITT: The date was February 3.
HEARING OFFICER: In your retelling to the Charlie Kirk Show the following day, you placed the game on February 2. In your exhibit, it was February 3. A fact that moves when the person asserting it is questioned is not a fact that was checked. Did you, at any point, open the link you cited?
APPLICANT SCHMITT: I had the text messages.
HEARING OFFICER: The text messages said, “Are we saving a seat for Jack?” They did not say Atlanta. They did not say Hawks. They did not say February 3. They said, “Are we saving a seat for Jack?” Did you, at any point, consider that the witness might have been at a different game, in a different city, on a different date?
APPLICANT SCHMITT: I considered that he might be lying about being in Atlanta.
HEARING OFFICER: And did you consider that you might be wrong?
APPLICANT SCHMITT: My job is to ask the questions.
HEARING OFFICER: So noted. Let us turn to the statutory requirements for other licensed occupations in this state. A barber, per RSMo 328.080, must complete one thousand hours of study or two thousand hours of apprenticeship, and must demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the common diseases of the face and skin. A cosmetologist, per RSMo 329.040, must complete one thousand five hundred hours of study, including ten hours of state law. An esthetician must complete seven hundred fifty hours, and a manicurist four hundred. Did you, at any point, consider that the Constitution’s requirements for a United States senator might be less onerous than those for a cosmetologist?
APPLICANT SCHMITT: I did not.
HEARING OFFICER: The Constitution requires that you be thirty years of age, that you have been nine years a citizen, and that you be an inhabitant of the state for which you are chosen. It does not require you to know the difference between the Atlanta Hawks and the Iowa Hawkeyes. It does not require you to know that February 2 and February 3 are not the same date. It does not require you to open the link you cite. It does not require you to verify your own exhibit. It does not require you to know the difference between a men’s game and a women’s game. It does not require you to know that “saving a seat for Jack” is not evidence of perjury. In short, it does not require you to do anything that a cosmetologist in this state is required to do before she may apply a chemical peel or a Brazilian blowout. Do you find that asymmetry surprising?
APPLICANT SCHMITT: I find it the way the Founders intended.
HEARING OFFICER: So noted. Let us turn to your closing argument. You called the witness a “dirtbag.” You later told TMZ, “That’s what these hearings are for. You ask questions, you get answers.” Did you consider that the witness might not be the only one at risk of perjury?
APPLICANT SCHMITT: I considered that he might lie.
HEARING OFFICER: And did you consider that you might be the one who was wrong?
APPLICANT SCHMITT: I considered that I had the text messages.
HEARING OFFICER: The board has reviewed your application. We find that you meet the constitutional qualifications for the office of United States senator. We further find that you do not meet the statutory requirements for any other licensed occupation in this state. We note that the Constitution does not require us to add to its three qualifications, and we may not do so. However, we do have a statutory obligation to protect the public from unqualified practitioners. In that spirit, we offer the following non-binding recommendation: before you question a witness about his whereabouts on a given date, you may wish to open the link you cite. You may wish to consider that February 2 and February 3 are not the same date. You may wish to consider that the Atlanta Hawks and the Iowa Hawkeyes are not the same team. You may wish to consider that “saving a seat for Jack” is not evidence of perjury. You may wish to consider that a women’s basketball game is not a men’s game, and that both exist. And you may wish to consider that the Constitution’s requirements for a United States senator are less onerous than those for a cosmetologist, and that this asymmetry is not a flaw in the law, but a feature of the design.
The board will now deliberate.
Exhibit A: RSMo 329.040, Curriculum for Cosmetologists
| Subject | Hours Required |
|---|---|
| Shampooing | 40 |
| Hair coloring, bleaches and rinses | 130 |
| Hair cutting and shaping | 130 |
| Permanent waving and relaxing | 125 |
| Hairsetting, pin curls, fingerwaves, thermal curling | 225 |
| Combouts and hair styling | 105 |
| Scalp treatments and scalp diseases | 30 |
| Facials, eyebrows and arches | 40 |
| Manicuring, hand and arm massage | 110 |
| Cosmetic chemistry | 25 |
| Salesmanship and shop management | 10 |
| Sanitation and sterilization | 30 |
| Anatomy | 20 |
| State law | 10 |
| Curriculum to be defined by school | 470 |
| Total | 1,500 |
Exhibit B: Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 3, Clause 3
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
Exhibit C: The Schmitt Standard
Rule 1. Before asserting that a witness was in a particular city on a particular date, check which games were scheduled in that city on that date. Rule 2. Before asserting that a witness was at a particular game, check which teams were playing. Rule 3. Before asserting that a witness was at a men’s game, check whether a women’s game was also scheduled. Rule 4. Before asserting that a text message saying “Are we saving a seat for Jack?” is evidence of perjury, check whether the witness was actually in the city you named. Rule 5. Before asserting that the date on your own exhibit is correct, check whether you have ever placed the event on a different date in a different interview. Rule 6. Before calling a witness a “dirtbag,” check whether you are the one who got the city, the date, the team, and the gender wrong.
Sources
- CNN, “Sen. Eric Schmitt’s basketball mixup, a confident witness and other takeaways from Jack Smith’s hearing” (Blake, 2026)
- The Hill, “Schmitt stands by calling Jack Smith a ‘dirtbag’ after basketball mix-up” (Beitsch, 2026)
- Missouri Revised Statutes § 328.080 (Barbers)
- Missouri Revised Statutes § 329.040 (Cosmetologists)
- Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 3, Clause 3
- CNN, “Senator Amy Klobuchar confirms Iowa Hawkeyes 93–85 win over Maryland on February 3, 2024” (Blake, 2026)
- The Charlie Kirk Show
- TMZ
- Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, September 29, 2026
PRH | huffmanwrites.org | © Philip Huffman