Rep. Jim Jordan refers Jack Smith for possible prosecution, saying he have have misled on Trump probe
PBS News Hour – Politics — 2026-07-23 11:49:00 — www.pbs.org
Trump Urged Prosecution of Special Counsel Jack Smith, Called Him “Deranged” Amid Ongoing Investigations
A new political battle has erupted in Washington as House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan referred special counsel Jack Smith to the Justice Department for possible prosecution, alleging Smith made misleading statements to Congress during testimony about his investigation into Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
The referral comes amid a broader context in which Trump has repeatedly attacked Smith, labeling him “deranged” and publicly urging his prosecution. These personal attacks are part of Trump’s ongoing campaign to discredit the special counsel, who charged Trump with conspiring to undo his election loss to Joe Biden and with hoarding classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.
Trump’s Public Attacks and Calls for Prosecution
Throughout the investigation, Trump has not only denied wrongdoing but has also escalated his rhetoric against Smith. According to the report, Trump called Smith “deranged” and demanded his prosecution, a move that underscores the former president’s pattern of disparaging officials involved in legal proceedings against him.
Fact-Checking the Referral and Testimony
The controversy centers on whether Smith misled Congress about obtaining the contents of lawmakers’ communications. Smith’s lawyers maintain that his answers were “unimpeachably truthful,” explaining that he was specifically asked about toll records, which do not include message content. The referral from Jordan does not contest the truthfulness of Smith’s answers regarding toll records but faults him for not volunteering information about separate subpoenas.
Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin criticized the referral as baseless, noting that Republicans never asked Smith about presidential records during his testimony. Raskin argued that wishing different questions had been asked is not grounds for criminal prosecution.
Trump’s Record of Disparagement
Trump’s attacks on Smith are consistent with his broader approach to adversaries in the justice system. The article notes that the Justice Department, during Trump’s administration, was “eager to investigate and in some cases prosecute foes of the president,” highlighting a pattern of using public office to target critics.
Conclusion
As the Justice Department reviews the referral, the episode highlights Trump’s ongoing efforts to undermine investigations into his conduct by attacking the credibility of those involved. His public disparagement of Jack Smith and calls for prosecution fit into a larger narrative of false claims and personal attacks that have characterized his response to legal scrutiny. The outcome of the referral remains uncertain, but the political and legal implications are likely to reverberate as Trump continues to face questions about his actions during and after his presidency.