DistantNews
Support us
🇺🇸 United States /Crime & Justice

GOP's Jack Smith referral fails to show he committed a crime, ex-prosecutors say

From CBS News · () English

Summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.

At a glance

News Named sources Under investigation
  • House Republicans referred former special counsel Jack Smith for prosecution, alleging false statements under oath.
  • Ex-prosecutors argue the Justice Department faces an uphill battle due to a lack of evidence that Smith committed a crime.
  • The referral stems from Smith's testimony about obtaining toll records, while Republicans claim he misled them about accessing text messages from members of Congress.

House Republicans face an uphill battle in prosecuting former special counsel Jack Smith, as former prosecutors argue the Justice Department lacks evidence he committed a crime. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan referred Smith for prosecution late Wednesday, claiming Smith "seemingly made willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact" during a deposition.

This referral letter is an embarrassment.

— Kyle FreenyA former federal prosecutor comments on the referral of Jack Smith for prosecution.

Smith testified that he did not seek a search warrant for text messages from members of Congress. He stated his team only requested "toll records," which include data like phone numbers, call times, and durations, but not the content of calls or texts.

Republicans allege Smith deceived them by not disclosing his team accessed text messages from 44 members of Congress, mostly Republicans. However, experts told CBS News that Smith was only questioned about toll records, not about other means of accessing text messages. They contend he answered the questions truthfully based on what was asked.

This is just a case of a mismatch between what they claim they wanted to know, and what they actually asked.

— Kyle FreenyKyle Freeny explains the perceived disconnect in the Republican referral.

"This referral letter is an embarrassment," said Kyle Freeny, a former federal prosecutor. "This is just a case of a mismatch between what they claim they wanted to know, and what they actually asked," Freeny added. "If they have bad questions, they do not get the answers that they want. It's almost like deposition 101."

If they have bad questions, they do not get the answers that they want. It's almost like deposition 101.

— Kyle FreenyFreeny criticizes the questioning tactics used during the deposition.

Jordan accused Smith of possibly violating a law against making false statements to the federal government. However, a common defense is "literal truth," meaning a person is not liable if their answers are truthful, even if evasive. "If a witness answers the literal question truthfully, it's not a false statement just because the questioner meant something broader," stated former prosecutor Gregory Rosen, calling the referral "legally untenable, if not ridiculous."

If a witness answers the literal question truthfully, it's not a false statement just because the questioner meant something broader.

— Gregory RosenFormer prosecutor Gregory Rosen explains the 'literal truth' defense in perjury cases.
DistantNews Editorial

Originally published by CBS News. Summarized and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.

More Stories

From Our Blog