Jordan accuses Smith of lying to Congress in criminal referral to DOJ

Jordan accuses Smith of lying to Congress: Jordan Pushes for Criminal Charges Against Smith Over Deposition Testimony Provpnadvice.com – House Judiciary

Jordan Pushes for Criminal Charges Against Smith Over Deposition Testimony

Provpnadvice.com – House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio, formally recommended that the Department of Justice pursue criminal charges against Jack Smith, the former special counsel who oversaw multiple prosecutions of President Donald Trump. The recommendation came late Wednesday, signaling Jordan’s intent to challenge the integrity of Smith’s congressional testimony during a recent deposition.

The Core Dispute Over Text Messages

According to a copy of the referral obtained by The Hill, Jordan’s letter contends that Smith made false statements while testifying before the committee late last year. The central issue involves whether Smith properly disclosed how he obtained text message content from members of Congress.

During his deposition, Smith was asked directly whether he had ever subpoenaed text messages from lawmakers. He responded in the negative. However, Smith’s team did eventually review text conversations involving members of Congress, though these messages came through a different mechanism. The texts were obtained via the White House rather than through a direct subpoena to telecommunications carriers.

“This information calls into question the completeness and accuracy of statements that Mr. Smith made under oath to the Committee regarding his team’s access to the content of Members’ text messages,” Jordan wrote to the Justice Department, accusing Smith of providing a “half truth” by failing to mention how the texts were received.

Smith’s Legal Team Defends the Testimony

Attorneys representing Smith quickly pushed back against Jordan’s accusations. They argued that the special counsel’s answers were “unimpeachably truthful” and characterized Jordan’s position as an “unprecedented theory that Mr. Smith provided false testimony not because of what he said, but because of what he did not say.”

Smith’s legal team, including attorneys Lanny Breuer and Peter Koski, emphasized in their correspondence that the referral was made not because Smith made a false statement—the letter concedes he did not—but because he did not proactively disclose information that was not responsive to a question asked.

“Mr. Smith agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee fully cognizant of the risk that President Trump’s Justice Department would try to find something in his testimony to serve as the basis for a criminal charge. This risk existed not because Mr. Smith would make a false statement, but because President Trump has repeatedly ordered that Mr. Smith be prosecuted and jailed.”

Democratic Response and Context

Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, immediately criticized Jordan’s referral as a distortion of the facts. Raskin explained that Smith did not subpoena members’ text messages directly but instead compelled the National Archives to turn over communications from White House staff. These White House phone records, which must be preserved under law, contained text conversations with 44 members of Congress.

“With today’s referral of Jack Smith to DOJ, Chairman Jordan and the Republican Congress have embarrassed themselves again in this investigation. Jack Smith was clear and consistent in his testimony, and he told the truth. When asked if his subpoena for Members’ toll records sought the content of either Member’s phone calls or messages, he truthfully replied that they did not. That statement was true when he said it, and it is true today,” Raskin wrote.

Raskin further suggested that Republican lawmakers were reacting to the realization that their communications with the White House had become presidential records preserved at the National Archives under the Presidential Records Act. She argued that the referral deliberately distorted and misstated the facts, including what questions Republicans actually posed during Smith’s interview.

Understanding Toll Records

A key element of this dispute involves the distinction between toll records and actual text message content. Toll records represent a summary from phone companies that details calls made and received, along with their duration, as well as a timestamp of text messages transmitted. Importantly, toll records do not include the actual content of the messages.

Smith has acknowledged obtaining the toll records of numerous lawmakers, but told the committee that he had not subpoenaed lawmaker text messages directly. The question posed by Republican staffers was specifically whether Smith ever subpoenaed lawmaker text messages, to which the special counsel answered no.

“While Mr. Smith testified that he did not seek a search warrant from telecommunications carriers for the content of Members’ text messages, he failed to disclose that his office received text message content from NARA relating to White House personnel phone records,” Jordan wrote, accusing Smith of having “excluded information that was highly relevant to the Committee’s examination.”

Smith’s legal team noted that lawmakers “voluntarily” sent texts to an executive branch mandated to preserve all records. They also pointed out that Smith disclosed the existence of the text messages to Trump’s legal team, who never contested them in court proceedings.

Looking Ahead

While Jordan and Raskin largely agree on the factual background surrounding the deposition, they diverge significantly on whether Smith was sufficiently candid in his responses. The referral to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche sets the stage for potential legal action, though the outcome remains uncertain given the nuanced nature of the dispute over what constitutes a false statement versus an incomplete disclosure.

The situation highlights broader questions about congressional oversight, the scope of special counsel investigations, and the political dynamics surrounding one of the most high-profile legal proceedings in recent American history.