Rep. Jim Jordan formally requested a criminal investigation into former special counsel Jack Smith on Wednesday, accusing him of making false statements during congressional testimony last year. The Ohio Republican, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, sent the referral to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, alleging that Smith contradicted newly obtained documents when questioned about his prosecutorial conduct.
Jordan's letter argued that Smith made "willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact" and that the committee had uncovered "strong evidence" warranting a criminal probe. The Justice Department confirmed receiving the referral and said it "will investigate all evidence of criminal conduct."
Smith's legal team quickly pushed back. Attorneys Peter Koski and Lanny Breuer issued a statement denying any false testimony, asserting their client "provided truthful, responsive answers and candidly discussed his work as Special Counsel." They characterized the referral as part of a broader effort to "weaponize the justice system" against a career prosecutor.
The disagreement centers on Smith's deposition before the Judiciary Committee on December 17. When asked whether he sought a search warrant for text messages from members of Congress, Smith said he did not recall such action. Asked if he had sought only toll records, he answered affirmatively.
But the Senate Judiciary Committee revealed in July that Smith's team had actually reviewed text messages from 44 members of Congress as part of their Trump investigations. Those messages, sent to White House officials between October 2020 and January 2021, came from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, though Republicans predominated. Smith's team received them from the National Archives and Records Administration in August 2023.
Jordan and other House Republicans contend this review violated constitutional protections under the Speech and Debate Clause, which shields lawmakers from legal scrutiny for official acts and communications. They argue Smith's team should have waited for a "Filter Team" to evaluate and remove privileged information before examining the messages.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican whose own messages were among those reviewed, called Smith's handling of the documents a violation of constitutional safeguards. Grassley said Smith "has answering to do" and pledged to call him before the Senate committee to account for his actions. Other lawmakers whose communications were examined include Jordan himself, former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California, and Senators John Cornyn of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky.
Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the committee's ranking Democrat, disputed the Republican account. He said Jordan's referral "deliberately distorts and misstates the facts" about what questions Republicans actually posed during Smith's deposition. Raskin argued that GOP members never asked Smith directly whether he had reviewed lawmakers' text messages, making it impossible for him to have lied about something they did not ask.
"Jack Smith could not have lied because Republican Members never even asked the question their theory is based on," Raskin said in a statement.
Smith led two major investigations starting in 2022, one into alleged election interference during the 2020 presidential race and another into claims that President Donald Trump mishandled classified documents after his first term. Both cases were dismissed last year following Trump's election victory, as longstanding Justice Department policy prevents prosecution of sitting presidents. Trump has consistently denied wrongdoing in both matters.
The special counsel has been a persistent target of Trump, who has repeatedly attacked him over the investigations. Wednesday's referral marks an escalation in the conflict between Republican lawmakers and Smith, with the House and Senate pursuing parallel efforts to scrutinize his conduct.
Author Sarah Mitchell: "Jordan's move signals the Republican playbook is now offense, not just defense, but the factual record on what was actually asked matters here."
Comments