This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Someone working inside of Jack Smith's lawfare cases against former and now President-elect Donald Trump reported "possible misconduct" going on, but an investigation into that issue, dated more than a year ago, has been stalled to date because Smith said a review would affect his investigations of Trump.

Those cases now, of course, have been ended by Trump's election to the White House in last month's vote.

So Congress is trying to get that review going again.

The revelations come from House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who confirmed the Department of Justice recently briefed the committee on an internal investigation it had opened into Smith's operations.

According to Washington Examiner, Jordan has been dissatisfied with what apparently is a campaign to block Congress from getting the information it wants, and addressed that concern in a letter to Jeffrey Ragsdale, counsel for the Office of Professional Responsibility, who was told to provide documents on the issues at hand within days.

Jordan, in the letter, pointed out the committee already had asked for documents relating to allegations Smith and his team "lied to a federal court, manipulated evidence seized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) during its raid of Mar-a-Lago, and improperly pressured a lawyer representing a defendant indicted by Smith." Those charges all have surfaced through various venues in recent months.

Further, there have been claims J.P. Cooney, on Smith's team, "intentionally sought to impose an 'unprecedented' and 'excessive' prison sentence upon a criminal defendant, and then spread false conspiracy theories when his supervisors overruled his recommendation."

All of this was held in abeyance because Smith insisted any revelations about misbehavior in his staff would affect the lawfare cases he was creating against Trump at the time, the letter explained.

"You stated that Smith only allowed the investigation to begin because it would now no longer 'interfere with the Special Counsel's investigation and prosecution.' It is absurd that OPR—the Department entity charged with upholding ethical conduct—would only examine allegations of prosecutorial misconduct after the subject of the allegations has approved the inquiry," Jordan wrote.

Jordan said one of the concerns was that "these attorneys" would be able "to evade internal accountability by leaving the Department."

The Examiner reported, "It is unclear what the nature of the misconduct was, but it is normal for attorneys to self-report to the DOJ's personnel office if they are aware of allegations being made about them in the media or elsewhere."

And it documented that Jordan has been trying to get records from Ragsdale since earlier this year regarding "various ethics allegations against Smith and the attorneys working for him."

For example, one allegation involves Jay Bratt and "was first raised in court by an attorney representing Walt Nauta, one of the co-defendants in the classified documents case against Trump. The attorney, Stanley Woodward, said that during a closed-door meeting, Bratt inappropriately brought up Woodward's application to become a judge while Bratt was trying to convince Woodward to comply with him in the Trump case. Smith has disputed the accusation," the Examiner explained.