The short version
- Former special counsel Jack Smith testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee amid accusations he made false statements about obtaining lawmaker communications.
- House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan referred Smith to the Justice Department, alleging his answers regarding toll records were misleading given separate subpoenas for text message contents.
- Smith's legal team maintains his testimony was truthful and specific to the questions asked, while a federal judge previously barred the release of part of Smith's investigative report.
Former special counsel Jack Smith appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, September 29, for a hearing that has become a focal point of political contention regarding the Department of Justice’s past investigations into President Donald Trump. The session began at 9 a.m. EDT and drew intense attention as lawmakers questioned Smith about his conduct during his tenure, particularly concerning allegations that he may have misled Congress.
The scrutiny stems from closed-door testimony Smith provided in December, during which he was asked about subpoenas issued for the toll records of several Republican lawmakers. Toll records typically contain metadata such as the time, date, duration, and phone numbers involved in communications, but they do not include the content of calls or messages. When asked if the requested toll records included the content of phone calls or text messages, Smith answered 'no' to both questions.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, argued that these responses were deceptive. In a referral sent to the Justice Department in July, Jordan contended that Smith’s answers created a false impression that prosecutors had not accessed privileged communications. This allegation gained traction after records from Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, revealed that Smith’s team had obtained the contents of text messages from 44 lawmakers through a separate subpoena to the National Archives and Records Administration.
Jordan wrote in his referral that the newly released information proved Smith’s earlier statements false, asserting that the special counsel and his team did have access to the content of members' privileged text messages. Consequently, Jordan referred Smith for possible prosecution, suggesting the Justice Department should investigate whether he made false statements to Congress.
Smith’s legal representatives firmly rejected these accusations. In a letter addressed to both Jordan and Representative Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Smith’s lawyers described his testimony as 'unimpeachably truthful.' They emphasized that Smith was responding specifically to questions about toll records, which by definition do not contain message content, regardless of other investigative actions taken separately.
While a criminal referral from Congress does not carry legal authority to compel the Justice Department to act, the political implications are significant. The current administration has demonstrated a willingness to investigate and prosecute adversaries of President Trump, who has previously labeled Smith 'deranged' and called for his prosecution. The hearing thus serves as both a legal inquiry and a political theater piece.
The context of Smith’s work remains contentious. As special counsel, Smith produced a two-volume report detailing his findings, which led to two indictments against Trump: one regarding attempts to overturn the 2020 election results and another concerning the retention of classified documents. However, in February, Judge Aileen Cannon, appointed by Trump, permanently barred the Justice Department from releasing the second volume of Smith’s report.
Judge Cannon criticized Smith for what she termed a 'brazen stratagem' in compiling the report after she had dismissed the case on grounds that his appointment was unlawful. This judicial ruling adds another layer of complexity to the current hearing, as it limits public access to the full scope of Smith’s investigative conclusions while simultaneously subjecting him to congressional questioning about his methods.
As the hearing concluded, questions remained regarding the long-term impact of these proceedings on the independence of special counsel investigations. The debate highlights ongoing tensions between executive branch accountability and political retribution, with no immediate resolution in sight for the legal and ethical disputes surrounding Smith’s tenure.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian US Politics↗Former special prosecutor Jack Smith faces questions at Capitol Hill hearing – US politics live
- PBS NewsHour↗WATCH LIVE: Jack Smith testifies before Senate Judiciary as GOP targets past Trump probes
