In a surprising twist to the saga of 67-year-old Olympian David Hearn’s indictment over damage to the Reflecting Pool, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Inspector General, Don Berthiaume, has opted not to investigate the case. This decision comes despite pleas from Hearn's legal team, who sought clarity on how their client was indicted for allegedly tampering with a piece of the pool already in disrepair.

Two weeks ago, Hearn's attorneys requested intervention from the inspectors general at both the Justice and Interior Departments. However, in a letter dated October 8, Berthiaume stated that legal constraints necessitate redirecting the case to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). This has raised eyebrows, especially given Berthiaume's controversial confirmation, where he refused to label the January 6 Capitol riot as an attack.

Hearn’s legal team, which includes Michael Bromwich, former DOJ Inspector General under Clinton, responded with a request for reconsideration. They highlighted potential criminal actions by DOJ and Interior personnel, including witness tampering and obstruction of justice. Notably, a grand jury witness initially unsure about the cost of the damage to the Reflecting Pool suddenly revised their estimate to meet the felony threshold after a brief recess.

Despite these serious allegations, the DOJ's OPR, now down to 16 staff members from 29, and lacking the transparency obligations of the Inspector General's office, has been designated to handle the case. Critics argue that OPR is under-resourced and less independent, reporting directly to higher-ups within the DOJ.

Meanwhile, the Interior Department’s inspector general has taken up the investigation into the allegations concerning Interior personnel, potentially shedding light on internal issues within the department responsible for the pool’s maintenance.

This refusal by the DOJ's watchdog to investigate the case has been criticized as indicative of a broader issue within the administration's handling of internal investigations. Hearn’s attorneys have called the situation a “sham,” expressing skepticism about OPR’s capacity for rigorous oversight.

The ongoing ordeal raises questions about accountability and transparency within federal agencies, leaving the public and involved parties eagerly waiting for what might unfold next in this complex legal battle.