Dozens of Secret Service staffers implicated in latest scandal

An inspector general report from the Department of Homeland Security found that the Secret Service violated privacy law in order to embarrass Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R), who led an investigation into an agency scandal last March. 

Brett Carlsen/AP/File
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R) of Utah on May 14 speaks at the start of a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, on Secret Service accountability stemming from a March 4 incident. A new government report concludes that scores of Secret Service employees improperly accessed the decade-old job application of Representative Chaffetz, who was investigating scandals inside the agency. A deputy director was caught suggesting officials leak embarrassing information to retaliate against Chaffetz. The report said the actions could represent criminal violations under the US Privacy Act.

Halting the wave of applause for the Secret Service’s smooth handling of Pope Francis’s visit to the United States, a new Homeland Security Department report suggests that the agency violated federal privacy law in an effort to embarrass Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Republican congressman from Utah.

In the midst of a March investigation led by Representative Chaffetz as the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee into the latest Secret Service scandal involving drunk senior agents, agency employees accessed his 2003 job application to the organization, forwarding the information to others, the DHS investigation found.

According to the latest report written by Homeland Security's inspector general, John Roth, Secret Service Assistant Director Ed Lowery even encouraged leaking embarrassing details about the congressman.

"Some information that he might find embarrassing needs to get out. Just to be fair," Mr. Lowery wrote in an email to fellow Assistant Director Faron Paramore.

Chafetts first learned that his initial job application had been dug up in April when The Daily Beast ran an article revealing that he had previously been rejected by the Secret Service.

"It doesn't take a lawyer explaining the nuances of the Privacy Act to know that the conduct that occurred here – by dozens of agents in every part of the agency – was wrong," the report said.

When it came out, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson apologized to Chaffetz, the congressman said in an interview on Capitol Hill. It’s unclear whether any employees had been punished.

"It's intimidating," Chaffetz said. "It's what it was supposed to be."

Agency Director Joe Clancy also apologized Wednesday for what he described as “wholly avoidable and embarrassing misconduct.” He promised to take action against those responsible for the data breach.

At least 45 employees viewed the file for Chaffetz’s unsuccessful job application. The investigation into the matter found that out of the 18 top agency members knew or should have known that the job application improperly accessed, only one attempted to inform Clancy. 

Under Secret Service protocol, as well as US law, the inspector general said, employees are required to report illicit behavior to supervisors.

"It begs the question, why do these people have security clearances if they can't protect secret information," Chaffetz said. "It's stunning to think how pervasive it was. This wasn't one person who couldn't help themselves."

This report contains material from the Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.