Full Breakdown
Jim Jordan Refers Former Special Counsel Jack Smith for Potential Perjury Charges
7/28/2026, 1:45:14 PM
Core Event
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) has formally referred former special counsel Jack Smith to the Department of Justice for possible criminal prosecution. Jordan’s referral centers on Smith’s deposition before the committee, in which Jordan alleges Smith gave false statements about whether he had obtained members of Congress’ text messages.
Background & Context
Jack Smith led the criminal cases against former President Donald Trump. In a congressional deposition late last year, Jordan asked Smith if he had subpoenaed members of Congress’ text messages. Smith denied doing so, saying he reviewed texts received through the White House. Republicans argue the answer omitted material information, potentially violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Democratic Committee member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) noted that Smith’s team obtained communications from the National Archives that pertained to White House staff, not congressional members.
Official Statements & Responses
- Jim Jordan – In a letter to the Justice Department, Jordan asserted that Smith’s testimony “omits material information” and recommended a criminal referral.
- Rep. Jamie Raskin – Stated that “they did not even ask whether Mr. Smith’s team had ever reviewed text messages from Members.”
- Jack Smith – Told MS NOW’s “Deadline: White House” that it “angers” him to see public servants “demonized for doing their jobs.”
- Andrew Weissmann – Former federal prosecutor called Jordan’s recommendation “preposterous” and said, “You cannot read this letter and in any way view this as perjury.”
Criticism & Opposition
- Andrew Weissmann – Argues the evidence cited does not meet the legal threshold for perjury, noting the committee never asked about the National Archives documents.
- Mike Davis (opinion writer) – Describes Smith’s deposition as an “abuse of power,” claiming Smith “omitted crucial information.”
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- Source disagreement – The Hill reports Smith received texts through the White House and did not subpoena members, while Fox News opinion pieces claim Smith obtained the contents from the National Archives without a “taint-team” review.
- Perjury standard – Fox News cites 18 U.S.C. § 1001, asserting a half-truth constitutes a false statement; Weissmann and Raskin argue the committee’s line of questioning did not require disclosure of the National Archives channel.
Verbatim Quotes
- “You cannot read this letter and in any way view this as perjury.” — Andrew Weissmann
- “They did not even ask whether Mr. Smith’s team had ever reviewed text messages from Members. Jack Smith could not have lied because Republican Members never even asked the question their theory is based on,” — Rep. Jamie Raskin
What’s Next
Jordan’s referral triggers a DOJ review, after which the department may decide whether to bring charges. No specific deadline for that decision has been announced.
