House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan has referred former special counsel Jack Smith to the DOJ, alleging Smith lied in a Dec. 17 deposition. The move is politically charged — amplified by Acting AG Todd Blanche’s comments and a public endorsement from Donald Trump — but congressional referrals are advisory and do not compel prosecution. Key to the dispute is that the disclosed text-message content came from NARA subpoenas of White House officials, not the members’ “toll records” Smith discussed, a distinction Smith’s lawyers say undermines the allegation.
Jim Jordan’s Referral of Jack Smith Faces Long Odds — Why It May Falter
Jack Smith; Jim Jordan.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has referred former special counsel Jack Smith to the Department of Justice, alleging Smith made false statements during a closed-door deposition on Dec. 17. The referral, announced after a string of high-profile encounters — a private deposition and a later televised hearing — seeks a criminal inquiry into whether Smith willfully misled Congress.
Why referrals matter less than headlines suggest
Congressional referrals to the DOJ are common but largely advisory. Federal prosecutors operate independently and decide which matters merit investigation or charges. While this referral gained attention because Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signaled during his confirmation hearing that he might consider an inquiry — and because former President Donald Trump publicly praised Jordan’s action — those political signals do not guarantee prosecution.
The core factual dispute
Jordan’s allegation centers on testimony Smith reportedly gave during his December deposition. According to some GOP members, Smith answered “No” when asked whether the “toll records” obtained from members of Congress included the content of text messages. Later disclosures showed text-message content involving members of Congress, which critics say proves Smith lied.
But the distinction matters: as Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley and media reporting note, the released text content did not come from members' toll records. Instead, those messages were produced after subpoenas to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for text messages of White House officials; those files incidentally contained text content referencing members of Congress. In other words, the disclosed messages were derived from a different source than the toll records Smith was referencing in his deposition.
Reactions and legal prospects
Smith’s attorneys called Jordan’s referral “meritless” and based on a “spurious claim.” Rep. Jamie Raskin, the committee’s top Democrat, condemned the move as political theater meant to harass Smith and create a distraction. Observers note that if the referral were presented to a judge as the basis for perjury charges, prosecutors would need clear proof of willful intent and a demonstrable discrepancy between sworn testimony and the exact evidence in question.
“I honestly do not spend a lot of time thinking about the things he says about me and his threats about me,” Smith told MS NOW host Nicolle Wallace, adding that he is focused on his colleagues and improving the Department of Justice.
Bottom line
The referral raises political stakes and may satisfy partisan audiences, but legal experts caution that the factual distinction between sources of records and the high bar for proving perjury make a successful criminal prosecution unlikely. Ultimately, career prosecutors at the DOJ will determine whether sufficient evidence exists to open or pursue a case.
Sources: MS NOW reporting, public statements from committee members, and media coverage clarifying the provenance of the disclosed text messages.
Help us improve.
