Full Breakdown
Rep. Jim Jordan’s Criminal Referral of Special Counsel Jack Smith Prompted a Legal Rebuttal
7/25/2026, 5:04:31 AM
Jordan’s Referral and the Allegations Involved
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department, accusing former special counsel Jack Smith of violating federal false-statements law. Jordan asserted that Smith’s December 2025 deposition before the House Judiciary Committee omitted the fact that Smith’s team had obtained text messages from 44 members of Congress through a National Archives request for White House phones. Jordan further argued that the texts breached the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, which shields legislators’ official acts from inquiry.
Letter from Smith’s Attorneys Refutes the Theory
On July 22, attorneys Lanny Breuer and Peter Koski wrote a letter to Jordan and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche describing the referral as “spurious” and “bad-faith.” The letter contended that Smith’s testimony was “unimpeachably truthful” and that Jordan’s theory—that Smith committed perjury for failing to volunteer information not directly asked—lacked any limiting principle. Breuer and Koski cited a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision rejecting such a theory, noting that witnesses are not required to disclose answers to unasked questions.
The attorneys also addressed the Speech or Debate claim, emphasizing that the congressional texts were voluntarily sent to White House officials and did not involve legislative business. They pointed out that President Trump’s former personal defense attorney, Todd Blanche, received the texts as part of discovery but never challenged their legality in court. The letter concluded that if Trump’s lawyers believed the acquisition was unlawful, they could have filed a motion, but they did not.
Former Prosecutors Criticize Jordan’s Referral
Former federal prosecutors have publicly denounced Jordan’s approach. Kyle Freeny described the referral as “an embarrassment,” adding that “if they have bad questions, they do not get the answers that they want. It’s almost like deposition 101.” Gregory Rosen called the referral “legally untenable, if not ridiculous” and argued, “If Congress wanted different answers, they should have asked different questions.”
Verbatim Quotes
Context and Implications
The dispute highlights a broader tension over congressional oversight of investigations and the scope of witness obligations during testimony. While Jordan’s referral seeks to hold Smith accountable for alleged nondisclosure, the legal team’s response underscores existing judicial precedent limiting such liability.
