The GOP House Referral of Jack Smith for Perjury Prosecution Is Bogus

Jim Jordan didn't get where he is by accident, and neither did this referral. If the case against Jack Smith for perjury rests on testimony that turns out to be true, that's not a legal strategy, it's theater. And theater has a shelf life. Once a reporter, a judge, or God forbid a jury actually reads the transcript, the whole thing collapses into exactly what critics are calling it: bogus.

That doesn't mean Jack Smith walks away clean in our eyes. The man ran a prosecution that plenty of Americans, not just partisans, watched unfold with real discomfort about timing, scope, and motive. Those are legitimate questions and they deserve serious answers. But swapping a real argument for a manufactured perjury charge is how you hand your opponents a gift. Instead of talking about Smith's conduct, the story becomes about Jordan's overreach. That's a bad trade.

There's a difference between accountability and a stunt dressed up as accountability. Congress has actual tools to investigate prosecutorial misconduct, and using them requires patience and receipts, not a headline-grabbing referral built on testimony nobody can actually prove false. If Republicans want people to trust that Jack Smith's investigation was politically compromised, the way to prove it is with facts that hold up, not with a charge that falls apart the moment someone checks the transcript.

We'd rather see the House build a real case than manufacture a weak one. A referral that can't survive its own paperwork isn't justice, it's just noise, and noise is exactly what lets the real questions about Smith's conduct go unanswered.