The former special prosecutor Jack Smithrejected the accusations of having lied under oath before Congress, after the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Jordan, referred his case to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for a possible criminal investigation. Smith's lawyers described the referral as "unfounded" and defended that their client responded truthfully and appropriately during a statement made before the committee in December 2025.
The dispute centers on the fraudulent investigations that Smith led against President Donald Trump and his allies. The special prosecutor was appointed to investigate whether Trump and his associates attempted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and whether the then-president improperly handled classified documents. Trump denied the accusations, and both processes ended after the 2024 presidential elections.
In a letter sent Wednesday night to Jordan and Attorney General Todd Blanche, Smith's lawyers stated that the former prosecutor agreed to testify before Congress fully aware that the Department of Justice under the Trump administration might attempt to use his responses as a basis for criminal charges.
The defense argued that Smith did not lie and that any attempt to prosecute him for his statements would constitute a political use of the judicial system. His lawyers claimed that President Trump had publicly called for Smith to be prosecuted and imprisoned on multiple occasions, arguing that such a situation would be incompatible with the rule of law and democratic principles.
Jack Smith could face a criminal process for having lied to Congress in his testimony regarding the fabricated case against Donald Trump
Jordan, however, maintains that Smith's responses before the Judiciary Committee were misleading. In his referral to the Department of Justice, the Republican stated that the former prosecutor's statements gave the impression that neither he nor his team had access to the content of private text messages belonging to lawmakers.
''We now know this is false,'' Jordan wrote in his letter to Blanche, in which he requested that the Department of Justice examine the possible criminal consequences of Jack Smith's statements.
The accusation is related to documents recently disclosed by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley. According to those documents, Smith's team obtained and reviewed text messages from 44 members of Congress from both parties and White House officials during their investigation.
Among the affected lawmakers were Jordan and Grassley, as well as the late Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican Senator Susan Collins, the Republican majority leader of the House, Steve Scalise, and Democratic Senator Cory Booker.
Republican Congressman Jim Jordan, along with many other party legislators, was affected by Smith's review of the text messages
During his testimony before congressional investigators, Smith was asked whether he had examined the content of text messages from members of Congress. According to Republicans, he responded that he had not and explained that his team had only requested phone records of communications.
The former prosecutor's lawyers offered a different interpretation. They argued that the questions posed during the segment of the testimony cited by Jordan specifically referred to subpoenas for obtaining call records and not to the content of text messages. For that reason, they maintained that Smith provided truthful and relevant answers and that he was not obligated to provide additional information that did not directly respond to the questions asked.
The defense also rejected the accusations that Jack Smith's team had violated the constitutional protections of lawmakers. His lawyers pointed out that the ''Speech or Debate'' clause of the Constitution protects members of Congress against certain interferences related to their legislative activities, but does not necessarily prevent prosecutors from reviewing communications between lawmakers and executive branch officials when they are part of an investigation.
According to the lawyers, the messages were voluntarily sent by members of Congress to executive branch officials and their review was related to an investigation into officials of that branch of government.
John Smith's lawyers assert that the answers provided by Smith are true and relevant
The case comes amid a growing political confrontation over the investigations led by Smith against Trump. Since the beginning of those inquiries, the president has harshly criticized the former prosecutor, whom he has accused of being a political adversary and of using the Department of Justice in a partisan manner.
Trump's allies have also questioned Jack Smith's actions for years and have argued that his investigations were part of a politicization of federal institutions against the then-candidate and now president.
Now, the Department of Justice will need to analyze the referral presented by Jordan. A spokesperson for the agency confirmed that it received the request and stated that it will investigate any evidence of criminal conduct. The Judiciary Committee, for its part, insisted that ''no one is above the law,'' while Smith's lawyers maintain that the former prosecutor responded honestly and that the referral represents an attempt to use the justice system to target an official who acted within his responsibilities.
The Department of Justice will now need to analyze the referral submitted by the Republican lawmaker
