The thing is, the inspectors don't do anything but investigate and then initiate enforcement. An overzealous ASI (several, in this case) started the ball rolling, but the enforcement process is driven by lawyers, not inspectors. Regional legal counsels are the ones that pick up the ball and run with it.
The problem with the Hoover case was that it demonstrated the corruption at the inspector level (FSDO level), with enforcement initiated as a weapon, not as a tool of safety. The other problem was that the first problem could have been fixed by dropping the enforcement action. Instead, the legal counsel doubled down and took it the distance.
There's a reason that inspectors are never allowed to interpret the regulation. That authority is delegated to the FAA Chief Legal Counsel. Inspectors can read the regulation, and apply it according to their understanding (which is all to frequently very, wrong), but they're not entrusted with interpretation of the regulation. Ever. When they misapply it so badly as to use it as a weapon to hurt airmen, their true character is laid bare. The bigger question is why those with the greater share of power, the attorneys, choose to promulgate the lie and the deception, and magnify it.
In a world where the FAA racketeers by engaging a very select few designated examiners and allows them to charge a ridiculous sum of money to do what the inspector should be doing for no charge (as a public servant on the taxpayer dime), it's little surprise that the FAA smacked Ms. Lunken down and used her designated examiner status as currency in 2016 when she had the runaway cub. Most likely the enforcement act of someone who never hand-propped an airplane or flew one without an electrical system. To call all this overreach would be generous. It should be called criminal, and should be subject to oversight and prosecution. Pity, it's not.