2026-07-24 · contested story

'Justice at last': Jack Smith referred to DOJ for criminal charges

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan issued a criminal referral to the Department of Justice on Wednesday, urging the agency to investigate former special counsel Jack Smith for allegedly making false statements to Congress during December 2025 testimony. Jordan claims Smith misled the committee about whether he obtained text messages from members of Congress during his investigation of President Trump's actions following the 2020 election. The incident reveals stark partisan divisions: Right-leaning outlets frame this as "Justice at last" and long-overdue accountability for prosecutorial overreach, with Fox News declaring Smith "could face potential criminal prosecution" for "misleading Congress." Center outlets like CNN and The Hill present the dispute as a technical question about what Smith was asked versus what he disclosed, noting his lawyers say answers were "unimpeachably truthful." Left-leaning sources like The New Republic and The Guardian dismiss the referral as "total nonsense" and a "baseless and vindictive" political attack, with Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin calling it something that "will get laughed out of court."

How each side frames it

left
"there's zero ambiguity here. Nothing in the Grassley docs raises any real question of perjury"
"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"
"This is absurd. Mr. Smith may be telegenic but he is not telepathic"
"It is meant to harass Jack Smith. It is meant to whitewash their own participation in a scheme to overthrow our elections"
"Grassley's post and the questions Smith was asked were two different categories of documents"
center
"Jordan alleges Smith misled the committee in closed-door testimony late last year. Jordan's concerns are largely based around Smith's team of prosecutors obtaining text messages between Trump administration officials and members of Congress"
"The Justice Department regularly receives criminal referrals from Congress, and the department then decides whether it merits charges or even an investigation"
"While Jordan and Raskin largely agree over the facts surrounding the deposition, they diverge on whether Smith was sufficiently candid"
"Legal experts predict proving perjury by Jack Smith will be incredibly difficult for the Justice Department, but a stronger case may be able to be made that Smith tried to obstruct a Congressional investigation"
"Top Judiciary Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin slammed the GOP-led criminal referral -- calling it 'baseless' and 'vindictive.'"
right
"Justice at Last??"
"We now know this to be false"
"Mr. Smith's team obtained text messages of 44 Members of Congress—implicating both Republicans and Democrats in both chambers of Congress—that may have included privileged content"
"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"

What each side left out

The right left out — covered by the CNN & The Guardian
The left left out — covered by the CBS News & The Hill
The center left out — covered by the CNN & NPR
The left left out — covered by the The Hill & CBS News
The right left out — covered by the CNN & NPR

What's actually true?

[verified] Smith's team obtained text messages from 44 members of Congress through the National Archives
[verified] Smith testified he did not seek the content of text messages when asked about toll records
[verified] The text messages came from White House phones required to be preserved under the Presidential Records Act
[verified] Trump has repeatedly called for Smith to be prosecuted and jailed
[verified] The Justice Department has already responded that it will investigate all evidence of criminal conduct
[verified] Todd Blanche, Trump's former defense attorney, is now leading the Justice Department and on the verge of Senate confirmation as attorney general
[verified] No members of Congress were charged by Smith in his investigations
[verified] A federal judge in November threw out criminal charges against James Comey and Letitia James

The narrative clash

Whether Smith's answer was technically truthful
Left: Smith's answers about his investigation looking at members' communications were 'unimpeachably truthful'
Right: We now know this to be false
Whether Smith violated constitutional protections
Left: The Speech or Debate Clause does not prevent prosecutors from using or reviewing text messages between Members of Congress and members of the Executive Branch in an investigation and prosecution of an Executive Branch official, which is precisely what happened here
Right: Jack Smith's criminal investigation of President Trump was a runaway train that had no brakes
What questions Smith was actually asked
Left: Jack Smith could not have lied because Republican Members never even asked the question their theory is based on
Right: 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

10 sources analyzed

CNN The Guardian US abcnews.com CBS News The Hill The New Republic judiciary.house.gov NPR Fox News nbc16.com

Perspectivity reads the coverage — not just who published it.

Read the full interactive analysis →