House Republican says Smith may have lied about Trump probe and refers
him for possible prosecution
[July 24, 2026]
By ERIC TUCKER
WASHINGTON (AP) — A key Republican lawmaker says he believes that
special counsel Jack Smith may have made false statements to Congress
while testifying about his investigation of President Donald Trump and
that the Justice Department should consider prosecuting him. Lawyers for
Smith deny the allegation and say he testified truthfully.
Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee,
referred Smith to the Justice Department for possible prosecution
related to closed-door testimony about whether he had obtained records
of lawmakers while investigating Trump's efforts to overturn his 2020
presidential election loss.
The referral, sent Wednesday, centers on a December 2025 exchange in
which Smith was asked about subpoenas that prosecutors had issued for
the toll records of some Republican lawmakers as part of the
investigation. Toll records show the time, date, length of call and
phone numbers involved but do not reveal the content of the
communication.
“Did the toll records that you requested from the senators, did they
include the content of the phone calls?” Smith was asked.
“No,” he said. He again answered no when asked whether the toll records
he had requested included the content of text messages.
Jordan, in his referral, says that answer was misleading in light of
newly released records from Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa
showing that Smith had obtained the contents of 44 lawmakers' text
messages in a separate subpoena to the National Archives and Records
Administration that sought the communications of various Trump advisers
and aides.
“The responses provided by Mr. Smith gave the impression that neither
Mr. Smith nor his team had access to the content of Members’ privileged
text messages," Jordan wrote. “We now know this to be false.”
He said a false statement can encompasses instances in which “the
witness provides a half-truth or excludes information necessary to make
statements accurate.”
Lawyers for Smith called that a “dangerous theory of criminal liability”
that has “no limiting principle and risks ensnaring every witness who
testifies before a congressional committee who does not proactively
disclose information that is not responsive to a question asked (i.e.
every witness).”
Smith's lawyers defend his veracity
In a letter to Jordan and Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top
Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Smith's lawyers called his answers
“unimpeachably truthful” and noted that he was responding to questions
explicitly about toll records, which did not include the contents of any
text messages.
“The toll record subpoenas that were the focus of those questions did
not call for the content of text messages," wrote Smith's lawyers, Peter
Koski and Lanny Breuer. “The questions and answers preceding and
following these exchanges also make clear that the focus of the
questions was on the toll records subpoenas. Notably, the referral
letter does not contest the truthfulness of Mr. Smith's answers.”
[to top of second column]
|
House Judiciary Committee Chair Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, points with
the gavel during a House Judiciary Committee hearing, June 4, 2024,
on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, FIle)
Raskin said in his own statement that House Republicans had
“embarrassed themselves” with the referral and that Smith answered
accurately when asked if the toll records subpoenas sought the
content of lawmakers' communications. He said Republicans were
faulting Smith for not volunteering information he was not asked.
“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. Congressional
Republicans never asked Jack Smith about presidential records,”
Raskin wrote. “Not during his 9-hour closed-door testimony or his
4-hour public hearing.”
A criminal referral to the Justice Department from Congress or any
other party has no legal authority and does not compel prosecutors
to act. But the department under the Trump administration has proved
to be eager to investigate and in some cases prosecute foes of the
president. Smith is certainly one such adversary, with Trump having
called him “deranged” and urging his prosecution.
“During his testimony, Mr. Smith provided truthful, responsive
answers and candidly discussed his work as Special Counsel,” Smith's
lawyers wrote. “This referral reflects a chilling eagerness to
weaponize the justice system by attacking a career, nonpartisan
public servant who faithfully and fearlessly performed his duties by
following the facts and the law.”
The Justice Department in a statement Wednesday night confirmed
receipt of the referral and said it “will investigate all evidence
of criminal conduct.”
Smith charged Trump with conspiring to undo the election he lost to
Democrat Joe Biden and with hoarding classified documents at his
Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, after his first term in
the White House. Smith abandoned both prosecutions after Trump's
election win in November 2024, citing longstanding Justice
Department opinions that say sitting presidents cannot face federal
indictment.
Smith resigned from the Justice Department in early 2025, 10 days
before Trump was inaugurated again.
___
Associated Press writer Alanna Durkin Richer contributed to this
report.
All contents © copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved
 |
