WASHINGTON (AP) — The Department of Justice's inspector general has declined to investigate the handling of the criminal case against a former Olympian cleared of accusations that he intentionally damaged the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, according to a letter Wednesday from the man's lawyers.

The internal watchdog told David Hearn's lawyers that the allegations of professional misconduct that they made fall outside its jurisdiction and are instead within the purview of the department's Office of Professional Responsibility, according to the letter, which urges Inspector General Don R. Berthiaume to reconsider the decision.

“Given the substantial public attention devoted to this matter, and the significant questions raised concerning the conduct of federal officials, declining independent review would risk undermining public confidence in the Department’s ability to police its own conduct. Such a result would be inconsistent with the purposes for which Congress established the OIG and would be a betrayal of its mission,” the letter says.

Hearn's lawyers this month had asked for investigations by the inspectors general at the departments of Justice and Interior, citing a broad variety of “incompetence and misconduct” that they said occurred during the criminal investigation and prosecution of their client. They say they believe they have identified potential crimes in the Trump administration's handling of the case, including witness tampering, obstruction of justice and the subornation of false testimony.

The Justice Department moved to dismiss the case last summer, saying newly produced evidence from the Interior Department showed that Hearn, 67, of Bethesda, Maryland, was not responsible for damage to the pool’s lining. A District of Columbia judge later permanently threw out the prosecution.

Hearn’s lawyers said in their initial letter to the watchdogs that the evidence that established their client’s innocence had been in the Justice Department’s possession for weeks and was “simply ignored.” They asked the inspectors general to investigate why prosecutors “rushed to indict” under what they said was pressure from Republican President Donald Trump, who had launched a massive renovation project of the Reflecting Pool for the celebration in Washington of America's 250th anniversary.

In renewing their request for an inspector general investigation, Hearn's team argues that the watchdog is uniquely positioned — both in terms of tools and independence — to dig into allegations of misconduct against the government officials involved in the case.

They note that unlike the inspector general's office, the Office of Professional Responsibility, which also investigates some categories of professional misconduct, reports to the deputy attorney general and attorney general and has no obligation to publicize its work or report its findings to Congress.

Hearn's lawyers also say the inspector general is the right office to investigate the potential criminal misconduct they believe they have identified within the government, asserting that prosecutors elicited false testimony from a witness who testified before the grand jury and violated Hearn's civil rights by proceeding with a flawed criminal case. They say the inspector general should investigate whether U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, whose office handled the case, violated ethical rules in a news conference when she announced charges against Hearn.

The U.S. attorney's office did not respond to a request seeking comment when Hearn's attorneys raised the allegations earlier this month.

Among Hearn's attorneys is Michael Bromwich, a Justice Department inspector general during the Clinton administration.

“In a case such as this one, when some of the allegations directly involve the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, there is substantial reason to question whether any meaningful independent review would occur,” the lawyers' letter says. “Your decision not to investigate would be consigning these serious allegations to oblivion despite the enormous public interest in the matter and the absence thus far of any accountability for the individuals involved.”