It was recently revealed that the Biden-era FBI, later in coordination with former Special Counsel Jack Smith, conducted an anti-Trump investigation codenamed Arctic Frost that, in part, targeted and obtained the phone records of several sitting Republican members of Congress.

The House Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), has now launched its own probe into the matter and sent letters to two telecommunications companies requesting records related to Smith's investigation, according to Just the News.

Meanwhile, House Republicans are also going after the federal judge who appears to have rubberstamped Smith's dubiously partisan subpoenas for the phone records of elected GOP lawmakers associated with President Donald Trump.

Letters demanding documents and communications

Chairman Jordan sent nearly identical letters on Tuesday to the CEOs of AT&T and Verizon to inform them of the House Judiciary Committee's oversight of the Biden-Harris administration's "politically motivated prosecutions" of President Trump and others associated with him in relation to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot of 2021.

"Recently released internal DOJ documents indicate that former Special Counsel Jack Smith compelled the production of phone records belonging to several Republican Members of Congress and simultaneously sought a gag order to prevent your company from disclosing the DOJ’s subpoenas into these individuals," Jordan wrote.

"These findings raise serious concerns about potential statutory and constitutional violations, including violations of the Speech or Debate Clause, and we therefore request documents and information to aid in our oversight," he continued.

"It is concerning that the Biden-Harris DOJ abused its federal law enforcement authority to effectuate a politically motivated prosecution against President Trump, in such a clandestine and partisan manner, by spying on the communications of sitting Members of Congress," the congressman added.

As such, Jordan gave the two companies until November 18 to turn over all documents, communications, and court filings that refer or relate to Special Counsel Smith's grand jury subpoenas, the investigation into the Capitol riot, or the Special Counsel's office and employees.

The impeachment of Judge Boasberg

According to Fox News, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) recently revealed via whistleblower-disclosed internal documents that former Special Counsel Smith's partisan probe targeted at least 10 sitting Republican senators and one representative with subpoenas for their phone records around the time of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

Those subpoenas were signed off on by D.C. District Judge James Boasberg, who is now facing articles of impeachment filed by Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) over his alleged abuse of power.

"Chief Judge Boasberg has compromised the impartiality of the judiciary and created a constitutional crisis," Gill told Fox News. "He is shamelessly weaponizing his power against his political opponents, including Republican members of Congress who are faithfully serving the American people within their jurisdiction."

"Judge Boasberg was an accomplice in the egregious Arctic Frost scandal, where he equipped the Biden DOJ to spy on Republican senators. His lack of integrity makes him clearly unfit for the gavel," the congressman added. "I am proud to once again introduce articles of impeachment against Judge Boasberg to hold him accountable for his high crimes and misdemeanors."

Not his first impeachment articles

Fox News noted that this is not the first time that Judge Boasberg has been hit with impeachment articles by outraged Republicans in Congress, as a similar effort to remove him from the bench was launched earlier this year after the judge overstepped his jurisdiction to block the Trump administration from deporting criminal illegal aliens to El Salvador.

Rep. Gill and the others who made that initial push ultimately backed off at the time, however, as it was not supported by House GOP leadership, who suggested that impeachment and removal were not the best way to effectuate necessary change to the federal judiciary.