Jim Jordan Refers Jack Smith to DOJ for Possible Prosecution About Trump Probe/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan referred former special counsel Jack Smith to the Justice Department for possible prosecution over testimony about records obtained during the Trump investigation. Jordan alleges Smith gave a misleading answer about access to lawmakers’ text messages, while Smith’s attorneys say he responded truthfully to a narrow question about telephone toll records. A congressional criminal referral does not require the Justice Department to investigate or bring charges, and Smith has not been charged with wrongdoing.
Quick Look
- Jim Jordan sent the Justice Department a criminal referral concerning Jack Smith.
- The allegation involves Smith’s closed-door congressional testimony in December 2025.
- Smith was asked whether telephone toll-record subpoenas included communications content.
- Smith answered that they did not.
- Toll records contain call data but not the content of calls or messages.
- A separate subpoena to the National Archives reportedly obtained 44 lawmakers’ text messages.
- Jordan argues Smith’s answers created a misleading impression.
- Smith’s lawyers call his testimony “unimpeachably truthful.”
- Jamie Raskin says Republicans never asked Smith about the separate presidential records subpoena.
- A congressional referral has no binding legal effect.
- The Justice Department confirmed receiving the referral.
- Smith has not been charged, and his lawyers deny that he made false statements.
Deep Look
Jordan Refers Smith to Justice Department
WASHINGTON — House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has asked the Justice Department to consider prosecuting former special counsel Jack Smith over statements he made to Congress.
The Ohio Republican alleges that Smith may have provided misleading testimony about records obtained during his investigations of President Donald Trump.
Smith’s attorneys deny the accusation and maintain that their client answered the questions accurately.
The referral is an allegation, not a criminal charge or finding of wrongdoing.
Dispute Centers on Toll-Record Subpoenas
Jordan’s referral focuses on a closed-door congressional interview conducted in December 2025.
Smith was questioned about subpoenas seeking telephone toll records belonging to some Republican lawmakers.
Toll records can identify the date, time and duration of a call, along with the telephone numbers involved. They do not reveal what participants said during the call.
“Did the toll records that you requested from the senators, did they include the content of the phone calls?” Smith was asked.
“No,” Smith responded.
He also answered no when asked whether those toll-record subpoenas included the content of text messages.
Separate Subpoena Obtained Text Messages
Jordan said Smith’s answers were misleading because newly released information indicated that investigators had obtained the contents of text messages involving 44 lawmakers.
Those communications were acquired through a separate subpoena directed to the National Archives and Records Administration.
That subpoena sought communications associated with various Trump advisers and aides. It was distinct from the toll-record subpoenas discussed during Smith’s testimony.
“The responses provided by Mr. Smith gave the impression that neither Mr. Smith nor his team had access to the content of Members’ privileged text messages. We now know this to be false,” Jordan wrote.
Jordan Alleges Smith Gave a Half-Truth
Jordan argues that Smith should have disclosed the separate National Archives subpoena even though the congressional questions specifically concerned toll records.
He said false-statement laws can apply when “the witness provides a half-truth or excludes information necessary to make statements accurate.”
Information about the National Archives records was released by Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa.
The Justice Department would have to decide whether Jordan’s allegation merits further inquiry and whether the evidence supports any criminal action.
Smith’s Lawyers Say Answers Were Accurate
Smith’s attorneys, Peter Koski and Lanny Breuer, sent a response to Jordan and Rep. Jamie Raskin, the Judiciary Committee’s ranking Democrat.
They described Smith’s testimony as “unimpeachably truthful.”
“The toll record subpoenas that were the focus of those questions did not call for the content of text messages,” the attorneys wrote.
“The questions and answers preceding and following these exchanges also make clear that the focus of the question was on the toll records subpoenas. Notably, the referral letter does not contest the truthfulness of Mr. Smith’s answers.”
Their position is that Smith correctly described the records covered by the specific subpoenas mentioned in the questions.
Raskin Says Republicans Asked the Wrong Questions
Raskin said House Republicans had “embarrassed themselves” by submitting the referral.
He argued that Smith accurately answered questions about toll records and was now being criticized for failing to provide information that lawmakers never requested.
“Wishing that you had asked different questions while you had the opportunity to examine a witness is not a proper basis for a referral of a witness for criminal prosecution. Congressional Republicans never asked Jack Smith about presidential records. Not during his 9-hour closed-door testimony or his 4-hour public hearing,” Raskin wrote.
Referral Does Not Compel Prosecution
A criminal referral from Congress does not carry independent legal authority.
It does not require the Justice Department to open an investigation, seek an indictment or prosecute the person named in the referral.
The department confirmed Wednesday night that it had received Jordan’s submission and said it “will investigate all evidence of criminal conduct.”
No public charging decision has been made.
Smith’s Attorneys Allege Political Retaliation
Smith has been a frequent target of Trump, who has called him “deranged” and publicly urged that he be prosecuted.
Smith’s lawyers characterized Jordan’s referral as an attempt to use the legal system against a former government official who investigated the president.
“During his testimony, Mr. Smith provided truthful, responsive answers and candidly discussed his work as Special Counsel,” the attorneys wrote.
“This referral reflects a chilling eagerness to weaponize the justice system by attacking a career, nonpartisan public servant who faithfully and fearlessly performed his duties by following the facts and the law.”
Smith Led Two Federal Trump Cases
As special counsel, Smith charged Trump in two separate federal cases.
One accused Trump of conspiring to overturn his 2020 election defeat to Democrat Joe Biden.
The other accused Trump of retaining classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving the White House and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them.
Trump denied wrongdoing in both cases.
Cases Ended After Trump’s Election Victory
Smith abandoned both prosecutions after Trump won the November 2024 presidential election.
He cited longstanding Justice Department opinions concluding that a sitting president cannot face federal indictment or prosecution.
Smith resigned from the department in early 2025, 10 days before Trump returned to office.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.