On Wednesday evening, Republican Representative Jim Jordan, who heads the House Judiciary Committee, urged the Justice Department to contemplate taking criminal action against special counsel Jack Smith, known for his prosecution of former President Donald Trump, as indicated in a letter acquired by USdaily.
Jordan claims that Smith provided misleading information to the committee during private testimony late last year. His allegations center on Smith’s prosecution team acquiring text messages exchanged between Trump administration officials and Congressional members as part of their investigation into Trump and the responses of his senior aides concerning the 2020 election defeat, as outlined in the criminal referral letter sent by Jordan to the DOJ.
The Justice Department, led by Todd Blanche, who was Trump’s primary defense attorney during the proceedings and is nearing Senate confirmation as attorney general, has stated that it “will investigate all evidence of criminal conduct,” according to a spokesperson. The spokesperson confirmed that Jordan’s referral has been received by the Department.
Jordan’s referral regarding Smith and the prompt reaction from the Justice Department align with a longstanding desire among Republicans to scrutinize and possibly pursue charges against Smith.
Trump has vocally advocated for Smith’s imprisonment, particularly after the criminal charges Smith had filed against him were dismissed, allowing Trump to return to the presidency last year.
On Thursday, the president commented on social media regarding Jordan’s actions, questioning, “Justice at last???”
The Justice Department routinely processes criminal referrals from Congress, subsequently determining whether to initiate charges or conduct an investigation. The current Republican-led Congress has requested the Justice Department to look into other individuals connected to the Smith investigation who have not faced charges.
However, the existing structure of the DOJ and the president’s known intentions to pursue criminal action against Smith and revise the findings of his investigation, along with the public narrative surrounding January 6, 2021, render Jordan’s action a significant escalation.
In a response letter sent to Jordan and Blanche on Wednesday, which was also obtained by USdaily, Smith’s legal team asserts that Smith’s disclosures regarding his investigation into members’ communications were “unimpeachably truthful” and that Jordan’s claims of falsehood are “spurious.”
Ranking Member Jamie Raskin criticized the GOP’s actions, stating, “This referral, if ever presented to a judge, will be dismissed outright. However, achieving success on the merits is not the aim; it is intended to harass Jack Smith.”
The Maryland Democrat further emphasized, “It aims to obscure their own involvement in a plot to undermine our elections.”
Allegations of ‘half-truths’
In his letter, Jordan accuses Smith of conducting actions that amounted to “spying on Members of Congress” and claims Smith provided “half-truths” during a deposition in December when he addressed records related to Congressional members that were included in the evidence reviewed by Smith’s team.
Jordan specifically requests that the Justice Department investigate whether Smith violated laws prohibiting false statements to Congress.
The committee chair asserts that Smith had testified to not pursuing the content of members’ communications. Smith indicated that his team had only obtained search warrants for call logs, known as toll records, rather than the actual content of those communications.
Smith’s legal representatives contend that Jordan has failed to substantiate any credible claim of deception.
“The referral is not based on any false statement made by Mr. Smith—the letter acknowledges he did not make one—but rather because he did not proactively disclose information that was unrelated to a question posed,” the response letter from Smith’s attorneys, Lanny Breuer and Peter Koski, stated. “This referral reflects a disturbing eagerness to weaponize the judicial system against a dedicated, nonpartisan public servant who diligently followed the facts and the law.”
Jordan’s correspondence mentions that records obtained by House Republicans indicate “that Mr. Smith’s team acquired text messages from 44 Members of Congress—implicating both Republicans and Democrats across both chambers—that may have contained privileged information.”
However, when the special counsel’s office retrieved text messages and communications from members, those records were sourced from the National Archives’ compilation of official White House phones from Trump’s first term, based on evidence made public and cited in Jordan’s letter. At that time, prosecutors were investigating messages from top Trump officials leading up to and including January 6, 2021, during which members of Congress communicated with some of those executive branch officials.
Congressional members have expressed outrage for months regarding the Smith special counsel office acquiring toll records from telecommunications companies, asserting it breaches Congress’ constitutionally safeguarded privacy. Communications associated with legislative functions are generally shielded from being utilized in criminal cases under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.
It has been widely acknowledged for years—and is not illegal—that Smith’s team obtained toll records and other data from members, including those who were in contact with the Trump White House before and during the Capitol riot and the effort to obstruct the certification of Biden’s election. Such investigative methods are standard in federal criminal cases. No Congress members or White House officials, apart from Trump, were charged by Smith.
Smith’s attorneys also maintain that the operations of his special counsel office did not violate Congressional members’ Constitutional rights when they secured messages from the Trump White House phones.
The Speech or Debate Clause “does not hinder prosecutors from utilizing or reviewing text messages exchanged between Members of Congress and members of the Executive Branch in an investigation and prosecution of an Executive Branch official, which is exactly what occurred in this instance,” stated the response letter.
This story has been updated with additional details.
Hannah Rabinowitz contributed to this report.
