House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan issues criminal referral against former special counsel Jack Smith for alleged perjury

Smith Over Alleged False Testimony Cyberzenhub.com – House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan formally submitted a criminal referral on Wednesday

Jordan Launches Criminal Referral Against Smith Over Alleged False Testimony

Cyberzenhub.com – House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan formally submitted a criminal referral on Wednesday targeting former Special Counsel Jack Smith. The legal action centers on accusations that Smith made deliberate falsehoods while providing testimony to congressional investigators several months prior. According to the official documentation, the committee identified what they characterized as “willfully and intentionally false statements” during Smith’s appearance before lawmakers last December.

Details of the Referral Letter

In a comprehensive letter addressed to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Jordan outlined the committee’s findings regarding Smith’s conduct. The correspondence specifically highlighted evidence suggesting that the former special counsel knowingly provided inaccurate information during his deposition proceedings. “The Committee on the Judiciary writes to refer strong evidence that appears to show Jack Smith, former Special Counsel, knowingly made false statements during his December 17, 2025 deposition,” Jordan articulated in the formal communication.

The referral represents a significant escalation in the congressional scrutiny of Smith’s work. By directing the matter to the Department of Justice, Jordan is seeking potential criminal consequences rather than merely political accountability. The timing of the referral follows months of committee investigations into various aspects of Smith’s prosecutorial decisions and public statements.

Smith’s Congressional Appearance

The allegations stem from Smith’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, which was captured in photographs showing the former special counsel addressing committee members at the Capitol building. The visual record from Thursday, January 22, 2026, documented Smith’s appearance, with Mark Schiefelbein of the Associated Press capturing images of the proceedings. During this session, Smith faced questioning regarding his handling of multiple high-profile cases and his communications with congressional investigators.

Smith’s legal representatives have not yet provided a public response to the referral. When contacted for comment, attorneys representing the former special counsel did not immediately address the allegations or explain their client’s position regarding the committee’s findings. This lack of immediate response is not uncommon in such situations, as legal teams often require time to review the full documentation before issuing statements.

Political Reactions and Context

The criminal referral has drawn immediate attention from both sides of the political spectrum. Top Judiciary Democrat Representative Jamie Raskin emerged as a prominent critic of the GOP-led action. Raskin characterized the referral as “baseless” and “vindictive,” suggesting that the committee’s allegations lacked substantive foundation and were motivated by partisan considerations rather than genuine concerns about perjury.

The disagreement between Jordan and Raskin reflects broader tensions within the committee regarding the scope and purpose of congressional investigations. While Republicans have emphasized accountability and legal compliance, Democrats have frequently argued that the investigations serve political objectives beyond their stated purposes.

What Happens Next

The Acting Attorney General now faces the responsibility of reviewing the committee’s referral and determining whether to pursue further action. This process may involve examining the specific statements at issue, evaluating whether they meet the legal threshold for perjury, and considering any additional evidence that may support or contradict the committee’s claims.

As this situation continues to develop, stakeholders on both sides of the political divide are likely to monitor the Justice Department’s response closely. The outcome could have implications not only for Smith personally but also for the broader relationship between congressional committees and federal prosecutors.

“The Committee on the Judiciary writes to refer strong evidence that appears to show Jack Smith, former Special Counsel, knowingly made false statements during his December 17, 2025 deposition,” Jordan wrote in a letter sent to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.

Top Judiciary Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin slammed the GOP-led criminal referral — calling it “baseless” and “vindictive.”

This story remains under development, and additional information may emerge as the Justice Department reviews the referral and as Smith’s legal team prepares its response. Readers are encouraged to check back for updates as this situation unfolds.