'Justice at Last': Jack Smith Referred to DOJ for Criminal Charges
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio criminally referred Jack Smith to the Justice Department Wednesday, alleging the former special counsel made false statements during congressional testimony last year.
President Donald Trump responded to the news, posting on Truth Social, “Justice at last???”
Fox News reported on Wednesday, “Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, released documents last week showing Smith’s team read the text messages of 44 members of Congress from both parties and White House staff during its investigation.”
Smith was overseeing the prosecution of Trump for allegedly interfering in the 2020 election results and mishandling classified documents.
Some of the targeted lawmakers’ communications by the special counsel included those from Jordan, Grassley, the late Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, former Vice President Mike Pence, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, and FBI Director Kash Patel.
According to the criminal referral letter sent by Jordan to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on Wednesday, Smith, when asked during testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last December whether his probe had read lawmakers’ text messages, replied, ‘No.’
#BREAKING: Chairman @Jim_Jordan referred former Special Counsel Jack Smith to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.
The evidence appears to show that Jack Smith knowingly made false statements while testifying under oath before the Committee.
Read the letter ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/yxz5rF6d48
— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) July 23, 2026
“Toll records were sought for historical telephone routing information, collected after calls had taken place, identifying the incoming and outgoing call numbers, the time of the calls and their duration,” Smith told the committee, Fox News reported.
“Toll records do not include the content of calls,” he added.
Jordan wrote Blanche in his referral letter, “All individuals have an obligation to comply with a duly authorized congressional inquiry. Mr. Smith, a former public servant, is no different. Yet his testimony included intentionally false statements designed to obstruct the Committee’s oversight.”
“His conduct can only be understood as an effort to thwart the Committee’s inquiry by intentionally making false statements and representations before Congress,” Jordan added, noting his committee believes sufficient evidence exists to criminally charge Smith under federal law.
Jordan further elaborated on Fox News Thursday, recounting, “[Smith] said he didn’t get contents, when in fact he did for 44 members of the United States Congress.”
“We are a separate and equal branch of government, and there’s a speech and debate clause in our Constitution. They [Smith’s team] should have screened out any communications relative to our work as legislators. They did not do it,” the Republican said.
— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) July 23, 2026
“When you ask the special counsel, hand-picked by the Garland-Biden Justice Department, to go after President Trump. Mr. Jack Smith … When you ask him, ‘Did you get the contents of members of Congress’s communications and he says, ‘No,’ that is not telling the truth. Because, in fact, he did,” Jordan said.
He further asserted that Smith’s prosecutors told the telephone carrier not to notify him or other targeted lawmakers that they had obtained access to their texts.
Jordan concluded, “It’s always worse than we thought when we start these things. The amount of information, the number of people he went after.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top-ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, argued in a Wednesday news release that Smith’s answers in December were responsive to the questions posed to him.
“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 said.
“Wishing that you had asked different questions while you had the opportunity to examine a witness is not a proper basis for a referral of a witness for criminal prosecution.”
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
