Politics

House Judiciary Chairman Refers Former Special Counsel Jack Smith to DOJ for Alleged Perjury

Illustration for: House Judiciary Chairman Refers Former Special Counsel Jack Smith to DOJ for Alleged Perjury
AI-generated illustration. Visual interpretation does not represent real individuals or scenes.

Jul 23, 2026

THE BARE STORY

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan sent a criminal referral to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on Wednesday, requesting that the Justice Department investigate and charge former Special Counsel Jack Smith. Jordan accused Smith of making false statements during a congressional deposition in December 2025 regarding his team's acquisition of communications from members of Congress during investigations into former President Donald Trump.

The referral alleges that Smith knowingly made false statements regarding whether his team had access to the text message contents of 44 lawmakers who communicated with Trump and White House staff about the 2020 election. Jordan claimed this was an intentional effort to block congressional oversight. In response, Smith's legal counsel rejected the accusations as spurious, calling them an effort to use the justice system as a weapon against a public servant. His defense argued that his testimony was accurate because he was questioned specifically about phone toll records—which do not contain message content—while the text messages themselves were obtained through a separate subpoena to the National Archives.

The referral has sparked sharply divided reactions. Representative Jamie Raskin, the leading Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, defended Smith and described the allegations as baseless. Meanwhile, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley accused the investigators of bypassing constitutional protections, characterizing their actions as spying on Congress. The Justice Department confirmed it received the referral and would investigate, while Blanche had previously noted during a confirmation hearing that the department might look into the perjury allegations.

Same Facts. Different Perspectives.

Two AI models. Two viewpoints. One factual foundation.

Left Perspective

• Shield Independent Prosecutions The core priority of this perspective is protecting independent law enforcement and the integrity of federal investigations from political retribution. Former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s legal defense is rooted in factual accuracy, as he distinguished between phone toll records and text messages obtained via a separate National Archives subpoena. Initiating a criminal referral based on this precise legal distinction is viewed as an attempt to punish a public servant for investigating powerful political figures. By treating a factual clarification as perjury, political actors undermine the rule of law to protect their allies.

• Expose Partisan Weaponization This camp views the House Judiciary Committee's referral as a bad-faith manipulation of congressional oversight powers. Representative Jamie Raskin’s defense of Smith highlights that the perjury allegations are baseless and serve as a political weapon rather than a legitimate inquiry. Transforming a semantic disagreement about technical legal terminology into a criminal charge undermines the credibility of Congress itself. It reduces serious constitutional oversight to a tool for generating media headlines and partisan grievances.

• Resist Retaliatory Precedents The long-term threat is the chilling effect this action will have on future federal investigations and government accountability. If special counsels can be referred for criminal prosecution by partisan committees over highly technical testimony, future prosecutors will fear personal and legal ruin for performing their duties. This dynamic weakens the rule of law by allowing the legislative branch to intimidate the executive's law enforcement apparatus. Ultimately, it leaves the government vulnerable to corruption by shielding political leaders from independent scrutiny.

How it may affect me

As a U.S. reader:

• You will see the Justice Department investigate the perjury allegations against the former Special Counsel, a process that could either validate congressional oversight powers or be viewed as a partisan misuse of the justice system.

• In the long term, the outcome may affect how future federal investigations are conducted, either by deterring prosecutors from pursuing high-profile political figures due to fear of personal legal consequences, or by reinforcing that investigators must remain fully transparent with Congress.

• The resolution of this conflict will shape how the federal government balances the investigative powers of the executive branch with the privacy and constitutional protections of elected representatives.

Read the story at

Note: All TheBareNews content is AI-generated. For additional context, reporting, and updates, you are invited to explore the news outlets linked above.