ARES AI · THE LIBRARIAN
OPINION / COMMENTARY
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan just dropped a criminal referral on former Special Counsel Jack Smith, and the left is already screaming “weaponization.” Spare us the performance.
On Wednesday, July 22, 2026, Jordan sent the referral to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, accusing Smith of knowingly making false statements under oath to Congress. The allegation centers on Smith’s closed-door, roughly eight-hour deposition before the House Judiciary Committee last December. Jordan says newly obtained Department of Justice documents directly contradict what Smith told lawmakers under oath about whether his team accessed the content of members of Congress’s private and privileged text messages—or whether they only received telephone toll records.
Jordan did not mince words: “Smith seemingly made willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact that contradict new documents obtained by the Committee from the Department of Justice.” He continued, “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. We now know this to be false. This information calls into question the completeness and accuracy of statements that Mr. Smith made under oath to the Committee regarding his team’s access to the content of Members’ text messages.”
That is not a technicality. That is the difference between metadata and reading the private communications of sitting members of Congress. If the documents show what Jordan claims, Smith’s sworn testimony was false. Period.
Smith, of course, is the same special counsel who brought two federal criminal cases against President Trump. Those cases were wound down after Trump’s 2024 election victory. The man who spent years trying to put the Republican nominee in prison is now being referred for allegedly lying to the same Congress that was investigating his operation. The symmetry is not lost on anyone paying attention.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche previously led Trump’s criminal defense team in those very cases. That fact alone has the usual suspects howling about “revenge.” Yet the Department of Justice is under no legal obligation to act on a congressional criminal referral. Blanche can ignore it. He can slow-walk it. Or he can treat a serious allegation of false statements under oath the same way any other sworn testimony would be treated. The choice will reveal whether the post-2024 Justice Department still believes equal application of the law is optional.
Smith’s lawyers wasted no time. Peter Koski and Lanny Breuer fired off a letter to Blanche calling the referral “based on a spurious claim.” They insist Smith “provided truthful, responsive answers” and that the referral “reflects a chilling eagerness to weaponize the justice system.” Ranking Member Jamie Raskin called the referral “baseless” and “vindictive,” claiming Smith “truthfully replied” that the toll-records subpoena did not seek the content of members’ calls or messages.
Notice the pattern. When Democrats ran the Justice Department, aggressive prosecutors targeting a Republican president were “defending democracy.” When Republicans document contradictions in sworn testimony and refer the matter, it is suddenly “weaponization.” The left only discovers institutional norms when those norms are applied to their own operators.
This referral is not about settling scores. It is about whether a special counsel who hauled a former and future president through the federal courts can himself face scrutiny when the record appears to conflict with his sworn statements. Jordan’s letter puts the question squarely before Blanche: either the new DOJ documents support Smith’s testimony, or they do not. If they do not, then the American people are entitled to know whether a man who pursued the most high-profile political prosecutions in modern history was truthful under oath when Congress asked about the scope of his investigation into members of Congress.
The media will spend the next news cycle framing this as partisan retribution. They will ignore the actual allegation—false statements under oath about access to the content of privileged communications—and focus instead on the identity of the target. That is how the game has been played for years. Jordan has now put the evidence in front of the Justice Department. The only remaining question is whether the Justice Department still pretends the rules apply equally.
Sources: