WASHINGTON — House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has formally submitted a criminal referral to the Department of Justice recommending the prosecution of former Special Counsel Jack Smith, alleging Smith made false statements under oath during a transcribed congressional deposition regarding his 2020 election subversion investigation.
The referral, addressed to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, centers on Smith’s sworn testimony delivered behind closed doors in December 2025. During that proceeding, Smith testified that his investigative team sought only “toll records”—telecommunications metadata that tracks call duration, routing, and timestamps without capturing substantive contents—concerning members of Congress.
Jordan contends that subsequent disclosures publicized by Senator Chuck Grassley contradict that testimony. Those disclosures revealed that special counsel investigators possessed and reviewed substantive text communications involving 44 lawmakers. Jordan argued that the discrepancy establishes that Smith gave deliberately misleading and evasive testimony to congressional investigators under oath.
Legal Team Rebuts Claims as Retaliatory
Attorneys representing Smith and congressional Democrats swiftly dismissed the referral, characterizing it as a legally groundless exercise in political retribution aimed at discrediting the former prosecutor who secured federal indictments against Donald Trump.
Smith’s defense counsel and independent legal analysts emphasized critical procedural and evidentiary distinctions:
-
Scope of Subpoenas vs. Executive Archives: Smith’s testimony specifically addressed telecommunications carrier subpoenas directed at lawmakers’ personal devices. Legal counsel clarified that his team never subpoenaed cellular providers for lawmakers’ message content.
-
Lawfully Obtained Records: The substantive text messages referenced by Grassley were lawfully obtained from Executive Branch repositories at the National Archives—specifically records of communications sent directly by lawmakers to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and other administration officials.
-
Perjury Standards: Under federal perjury statutes, prosecutors must prove a witness knowingly made a materially false statement. Defense counsel noted that failing to unpromptedly discuss separate categories of documents acquired through other legitimate avenues does not constitute perjury, underscoring that Smith stands firmly by the factual accuracy of his deposition.
Deepening Battle Over Federal Law Enforcement
The Justice Department acknowledged receipt of Jordan’s referral on Thursday, declining further substantive comment in accordance with standard review protocols.
The move represents an aggressive escalation in congressional Republicans’ broader push to turn the apparatus of legal oversight onto the career prosecutors, intelligence personnel, and special counsels who directed investigations into Trump. While a congressional criminal referral carries symbolic and political weight, it possesses no binding legal authority over the Justice Department, which retains independent prosecutorial discretion to determine whether to open an investigation or convene a grand jury.
As federal authorities review the submission, the clash underscores how the investigative fallout from the 2020 election remains an active partisan battleground on Capitol Hill, with lawmakers increasingly employing criminal referrals to challenge the legitimacy and conduct of high-profile federal inquiries.
