Whistleblower Alleges Drag Queen Sam Brinton’s DOE Job Obtained By “Undue Political Influence And Preferences”

Sam Brinton, who officially started his job as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition in the Office of Nuclear Energy in the Department of Energy on June 19th, is also a drag queen named “Sister Ray Dee O’Active” who discusses his fetish for pup play and publicly defended an underage gay prostitution website. Controversial to say the least, but one can’t help but notice that he sure does check a whole lot of radical woke leftist boxes.

And that might just be the reason he was selected for his position. Back on February 2nd, a letter was sent by a DOE whistleblower to the Deputy Inspector General at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) requesting his “immediate investigation into substantial irregularities in the recruitment and selection processes for the career Senior Executive Service (SES) appointment at the U.S. Department of Energy of Samuel Brinton for a highly sensitive position as a senior executive manager of the nation’s nuclear waste policy and programs.”

The letter states,

“This request for an investigation is based on knowledge that undue political influence and preferences were applied to select Samuel Brinton for this SES position. Also in the Office of Nuclear Energy, after the placement of the former career Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary became circumspect for violating PPP, the incumbent was reassigned as a political appointee Senior Advisor in the Office of the Secretary. Since the Senior Advisor has recently been nominated for the political appointment of the Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy, it is possible that a full OPM IG investigation of PPP associated with the prior career appointment may be avoided after Senate hearings. Once confirmation is final, there is concern that any requests for an investigation of improprieties associated with the selection of Sam Brinton for the career Deputy Assistant Secretary position in the same office will be silenced.”

Yikes. The whole thing wreaks of “undue political influence and preferences” and leftist agenda, doesn’t it? The letter specifically cites several violations of the OPM’s “prohibited personnel practices”:

“Pursuant to U.S.C 2302, “OPM may review proposed career appointments to ensure they comply with all merit staffing requirements and are free of any impropriety.” This appeal seeks investigation of PPP violations based on:

-discrimination against other qualified candidates in favor of Samuel Brinton [5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(1)],

-granting unauthorized advantage of Samuel Brinton over other qualified candidates [5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(6)],

-coercing political activity to further social-political preferences and beliefs [5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(3)], and

-obstructing competition by unfairly chilling open and fair consideration of other candidates for the position [5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(4)].”

The letter also alleges that Sam Brinton is “lacking core qualifications” for the position to which he was appointed.

“Samuel Brinton has no prior federal government experience, no executive management or operations experience, training, or skills, nor does he meet ECQ criteria or the fundamental SES competencies. His background is limited to select advocacy work and an academic background at the graduate-degree level which together satisfy requirements for the competitive placement of a qualified GS-11 in federal career service, not a high-standing member of the SES.”

The end of the letter reiterates all the above allegations, saying,

“This requested IG investigation is based on knowledge of improprieties in the recruitment and selection processes for this important career SES position, as well as the lack of qualifications of selected candidate Samuel Brinton over other more highly qualified candidates who meet the fundamental competencies and core qualifications, which he does not have. Additionally, there is concern that making personnel selection decisions for career positions based on political considerations and gender-fluid identity as means of exerting political influence over the workforce, and at the expense of other better qualified candidates, is not the intent of the U.S. civil service laws or the U.S. constitution.”

All of this can only be interpreted to mean that there were other more qualified candidates for the position who were passed over in favor of a less-qualified individual specifically because that individual checked certain radical woke leftist boxes for an agenda-driven administration. Do you think they will do a thorough and impartial investigation into these allegations? Or do the whistleblower’s fears that the whole thing might be “silenced” seem more plausible?