House Judiciary Chairman Calls for Criminal Probe of Jack Smith, DOJ Lawyers Reject Referral
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
Rep. Jim Jordan asked the Justice Department to investigate former special counsel Jack Smith for alleged false statements to Congress, but Smith’s attorneys described the request as unfounded and unprecedented.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) wrote to the Justice Department on July 22 urging a criminal investigation of former special counsel Jack Smith, alleging that Smith lied to Congress about the scope of text-message data his team obtained during the Jan. 6 inquiry. Jordan contended that Smith’s testimony omitted the fact that his office had received some content of congressional texts along with phone-record data, which he said constituted a false statement.
Smith’s legal team, led by former Justice Department officials Lanny A. Breuer and Peter Koski, responded the same day, calling the referral “unprecedented” and asserting that Smith’s answers were “unimpeachably truthful.” They warned that the theory of liability could “ensnare every witness who testifies before a congressional committee who does not proactively disclose information that is not responsive to a question asked.”
During a closed-door deposition on Dec. 17, Smith said he did not recall seeking a warrant for the content of congressional text messages and that his request was limited to dates and times of communications. He later confirmed that the records he sought did not include the actual content of calls or texts.
"No one is above the law, and that includes Jack Smith," House Judiciary Committee spokesperson Stefanie Farrell said, adding that Smith’s statements were contradicted by evidence and hindered the committee’s inquiry.
The Justice Department has not commented on whether it will open an investigation into Smith or on the political implications of Jordan’s request. The committee’s broader investigation also examines whether Smith’s team violated the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause by obtaining information from members of Congress.
Smith’s attorneys reiterated that the referral conflicts with fundamental legal principles and the democratic process, describing it as contrary to the rule of law.