Jack Smith’s Lawyers Reject Criminal Referral as Meritless, Accuse House Republicans of Weaponizing Justice System

Attorneys for former Special Counsel Jack Smith have issued a forceful response to a criminal referral from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, describing the allegations of false testimony as spurious and framing the move as an attempt to weaponize the justice system against a career prosecutor who followed the facts and the law.

Jordan referred Smith to the Justice Department this week, asserting that the former special counsel made willfully false statements during an eight-hour closed-door deposition before the committee on December 17, 2025. The referral centers on exchanges in which Smith was asked whether he had sought a search warrant for the content of text messages from members of Congress and whether toll records obtained from senators included the content of phone calls or messages. Smith answered that he did not recall seeking such a warrant for members and that the toll records did not include content. Jordan contends those answers left the false impression that Smith’s team never accessed the content of lawmakers’ text messages, information later contradicted by documents showing the team had reviewed certain messages obtained through other means, including records from the National Archives.

In a letter sent to Jordan and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Smith’s counsel, Peter Koski and Lanny Breuer, rejected the referral’s premise. They noted that the committee’s own letter effectively concedes Smith did not make a false statement about the specific questions asked. Instead, the attorneys argued, the referral rests on the novel theory that Smith committed a crime by failing to volunteer information that was not responsive to the questions posed. “The referral is made not because Mr. 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,” the lawyers wrote.

They maintained that Smith’s answers were truthful and responsive, focused on the toll-record subpoenas under discussion at that point in the deposition. Those subpoenas, the letter stated, did not seek the content of text messages. Smith’s team further argued that any review of messages between members of Congress and executive-branch officials in the context of investigating an executive-branch official did not violate the Speech or Debate Clause, which protects legislative acts rather than all communications involving lawmakers.

The attorneys placed the referral in a broader political context. Smith, they said, agreed to testify fully aware that the Trump administration’s Justice Department might scrutinize his words for any possible basis to bring charges. That risk, according to the letter, stemmed not from any expectation that Smith would lie but from the president’s repeated public calls for Smith to be prosecuted and jailed. “That is not the rule of law,” the lawyers wrote. “And it contravenes the principles that are critical to the vitality of our democracy.” They described the referral as reflecting “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.”

Jordan’s committee has defended the referral, stating that no one is above the law and that Smith’s statements impeded legitimate oversight of the prior administration’s Justice Department. The Justice Department has confirmed receipt of the referral and said it will review evidence of any criminal conduct. Congressional criminal referrals do not compel the department to open an investigation or bring charges, and former prosecutors have publicly questioned whether the evidence meets the legal threshold for a false-statement prosecution given the precise questions asked and answers given.

The exchange marks the latest chapter in the long-running conflict between House Republicans and the prosecutor who brought federal cases against Trump arising from the 2020 election and classified documents. Smith has previously maintained that his investigations were driven solely by the evidence and the law. His lawyers’ latest letter doubles down on that position while accusing the current congressional majority of transforming oversight into a tool of political retribution. Whether the Justice Department takes any further action remains to be determined.