Questions surrounding one of the most controversial investigations of President Donald Trump are taking a new turn after senior Republicans claimed they uncovered evidence that could expose a former special counsel to criminal liability.
The allegations center on sworn testimony given before Congress and are already prompting calls for a new Justice Department investigation, though no criminal charges have been filed and the claims have not been tested in court.
Advertisement
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, says newly obtained Justice Department information indicates former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team accessed the contents of text messages belonging to members of Congress during the FBI’s Arctic Frost investigation, despite Smith previously telling lawmakers that investigators did not examine those communications.
Smith testified before the House Judiciary Committee last year that investigators may have collected records showing the times, dates and recipients of phone calls and text messages involving members of Congress.
However, he maintained that investigators never reviewed the contents of lawmakers’ text messages.
Advertisement
According to Grassley, recently obtained Justice Department information paints a different picture.
The Iowa Republican said the records indicate investigators not only gained access to the contents of congressional text messages but also violated Justice Department protocols governing such investigative activity.
Advertisement
Grassley has not publicly released all of the underlying documents supporting his claims.
The allegations quickly prompted sharp reactions from several Senate Republicans.
“Jack Smith should be subject to prosecution for lying to Congress,” Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., a former state attorney general, said.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., also a former state AG, accused the former special counsel of misconduct as well.
“Looks like perjury,” Hawley wrote on social media.
“Joe Biden’s DOJ not only tapped my phone; I just learned they ILLEGALLY obtained my texts with members of President Trump’s administration. Everyone involved needs to be PROSECUTED,” he added.
During a Senate hearing this week, Hawley questioned Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche about whether the Justice Department should investigate Smith over his congressional testimony.
“Have you thought about investigating this guy for perjury?” Hawley asked.
“We take testimony in front of this body very seriously, yes,” Blanche responded.
Blanche did not announce the opening of any investigation or indicate whether the Justice Department has reached any conclusions regarding Smith’s testimony.
As of now, the department has not publicly accused Smith of committing perjury or any other crime.
Smith served as special counsel during the Biden administration and oversaw two federal criminal cases against Trump, including one involving alleged efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Both prosecutions ended after Trump’s victory in the 2024 election, consistent with longstanding Justice Department policy prohibiting the prosecution of a sitting president.
To prove perjury under federal law, prosecutors generally must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a witness knowingly made a materially false statement while under oath.
Mistaken testimony or misunderstandings typically are not sufficient by themselves to support a criminal conviction.
Whether the newly cited Justice Department records directly contradict Smith’s testimony has not been independently established based on the information released publicly.
Neither Smith nor his representatives had publicly responded to Grassley’s allegations at the time of publication.
If additional records are released, they could become central to determining whether investigators merely collected communication records, as Smith described, or whether they actually reviewed the contents of congressional text messages in a manner inconsistent with his testimony.
For now, Republicans are arguing the newly disclosed information raises serious questions about how the Arctic Frost investigation was conducted and whether Smith accurately described its scope to Congress, The Washington Times reported.
Whether those allegations ultimately result in a formal Justice Department investigation or any criminal charges remains to be seen, but the dispute has opened a new chapter in the continuing political and legal battles surrounding the investigations into President Trump.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.
