U.S. Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) speaks during a U.S. House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on sanctuary city policies, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 30, 2026. REUTERS/Aaron Schwartz
Republicans have spent the past two years looking for a way that they could target former special counsel Jack Smith and they think they've found one. The problem, one legal expert explained, is that they're operating more off of hope than reality.
On Thursday morning, President Donald Trump took to Truth Social to share a blog post about Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) referring Smith for criminal prosecution, claiming he lied under oath.
"Justice at last???" Trump said, sharing the report.
CNN legal expert Elie Honig explained that the scheme wouldn't work.
"I do not think there is a valid, provable federal crime here against Jack Smith," he began. "And here's why: The core of the allegation that Jim Jordan is making is that Jack Smith testified back in December that he had not seen the substance of text messages involving members of Congress. But it later turned out he had seen text messages."
On its face, that sounds like he lied, said Honig. The challenge for the GOP is in looking at the transcript of the actual question he was being asked at the time and which set of documents they were talking about.
"The problem is there are two different sets of documents that Jack Smith testified about," said Honig. "The first one that he's being questioned about. There are documents that Jack Smith obtained: phone records of certain members of Congress. And as Jack Smith testified here, you can see all that he saw is the record of what phone number called, what phone number on what date, and for how long."
CNN displayed the transcript on the screen.
"Okay. Did the toll records that you requested from the senators, did they include the content of the phone calls?" asked the GOP lawmaker, according to the transcript. Smith said, "No."
The lawmaker then asked, "Did the records that you requested, the toll records from the Member of Congress, include the content of the text messages?" Smith answered, "No."
The toll records are documents that show when calls were made, not text messages. The text messages that Smith read from members of Congress came from the National Archives. All of those texts were backed up for record-keeping purposes. They're a different set of documents than the toll records. So, when the Republicans were asking the question, he was specifically saying "the toll records from the Member of Congress," and toll records don't contain text messages.
Honig said that Smith could have offered information that he had seen the contents of the text messages in the other documents, but he simply answered the question as asked.
"It's not false for him to say there that he had not seen the substance of the text messages," he added.
Honig anticipates that if the DOJ tries to indict Smith, he will likely move to dismiss the case based on "vindictive prosecution."
"And if he makes that argument, which he surely will, if he gets prosecuted, this will be an exhibit to make that argument," said Honig. "He'll say, look, the president is openly pushing for this. There's a long-standing history between us, and that will bolster a vindictive prosecution defense should Jack Smith ever get charged."
While Jordan claims that Smith was speaking in "half-truths," Honig said you can't bring a case of perjury based on a half-truth. "In order to make a perjury case, you have to show a specific, clear question and a specific, clear false answer."
While Jordan, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, attended law school, he's never taken the Bar Exam, nor has he ever practiced law.
Smith's attorneys released a statement saying, "This 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."