Also, while publicly testifying about the incident late last month, Sullivan did not disclose that the additional agency employee implicated in the controversy was a supervisor and had access to security information about the visit. Sullivan later urged lawmakers not to make that information public, a transcript of his testimony shows. An agency official briefed on the probe said the director delayed providing that information to protect possible undercover agents.
On Friday, the Associated Press released a list of formal misconduct allegations made about Secret Service staff since 2004. The list, heavily redacted complaints made to the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general, included allegations that staff had solicited prostitutes, been involved in sexual assaults, leaked sensitive information, published pornography, improperly used weapons and engaged in drunken behavior.
One anonymous complaint in 2011 asked the inspector general to investigate allegations that Sullivan had ordered that a contract worth millions of dollars be awarded to a specific contractor without competition.
“The procurement staff was allegedly warned ‘not to interfere’ after questioning the award,” the documents report.
The documents do not indicate in many cases whether the complaints were proved true or whether any actions were ordered as a result. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said the list was simply a log of incoming complaints. “Allegations of employee misconduct, whether they are received at the Secret Service, at DHS-OIG, or on an anonymous hotline, are taken seriously and fully investigated,” he said.
Department of Homeland Security Inspector General Charles K. Edwards said through a spokesman Friday that his agency investigated the 2011 allegation against Sullivan and found no evidence to support it. The complaint had been sent directly to the office’s chief investigator, Thomas M. Frost, who was recently placed on administrative leave pending a criminal grand jury probe into allegations that his office fabricated investigative reports.
In the Cartagena case, the newly identified employee, John Christman, is a supervisor in the agency’s intelligence division, which reviews risks and threats to the president. He was assigned as an intelligence officer in an incident command center for Obama’s Colombia trip, according to agency personnel briefed on the probe.
Christman declined to comment through the agency, as did Larry Berger, a lawyer for the federal law enforcement union representing members of the service implicated in the scandal.