A group has been victimized by a department of the government, based on the ideology, a massive ethical violation at the minimum. It really doesn't matter if some of the people who are enraged by this are sympathetic to the victims. Everyone should be enraged by this. We must determine the extent of the crime and who is to blame and to what degree, and act accordingly to punish them and prevent future abuses of this sort.

Now if you want to say we shouldn't jump to conclusions about the motives of the perpetrators, that would be fair... though I'd advise trying to sound a bit more adult about it... many a crime has been done for murky or counter-intuitive reasons. Hence, we need an investigation to find out who specifically did it, who was a willing accomplice, and what their motivations were.

Of course the problem there is that he never did jump the gun to incite that sort of counter-argument, he's merely pointed to a crime that no one denies has happened and said we need to take stern measures to prevent it recurring, then suggested a fairly obvious option, increased oversight. You seem to be arguing that even suggesting that option is absurd, which is akin to finding out a hospital pharmacy employee has been selling drugs and yelling at someone when they demand an investigation and call for more safeguards and oversight at that pharmacy.