READ: Draft Document Would Have Notified Congress About Missing Secret Service Texts Weeks Earlier

US President Donald Trump speaks to the press in the Brady Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on August 10, 2020. - Secret Service guards shot a person, who was apparently armed, outside the White Ho... US President Donald Trump speaks to the press in the Brady Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on August 10, 2020. - Secret Service guards shot a person, who was apparently armed, outside the White House on Monday, President Donald Trump said just after being briefly evacuated in the middle of a press conference. The president was abruptly ushered out of the press event and black-clad secret service agents with automatic rifles rushed across the lawn north of the White House. Minutes later, Trump reappeared at the press conference, where journalists had been locked in, and announced that someone had been shot outside the White House grounds. Trump said he knew nothing about the identity or motives of the person shot, but when asked if the person had been armed, answered: "From what I understand, the answer is yes." (Photo by Brendan Smialowski / AFP) (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images) MORE LESS

The case of the missing Jan. 6 Secret Service text exchanges keeps unfolding: The DHS inspector general’s office drafted a statement that would have alerted Congress to the lost text messages at least a month earlier, but ultimately chose not to publish it.

A nonpartisan government watchdog group made the draft statement public today.

On April 1, career staff at the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General approved language for a draft notification that would’ve gone out in the inspector general’s semiannual report to Congress in June. The notification detailed the inspector general’s office’s difficulties obtaining text messages and other documents from the Secret Service — material that has since become central to some of the lingering questions around the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Documents provided to the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), including the draft notification itself, show that the language had been approved by top staffers within the inspector general’s office and their Office of Counsel. 

Yet the draft was not ultimately made public. It’s another piece of a pattern in which Inspector General Joseph Cuffari did not alert Congress that key information had gone missing, according to the watchdog group. 

“Cuffari and his inner circle killed off an effort by rank-and-file watchdog staff to tell Congress about dire accountability roadblocks,” Liz Hempowicz, POGO’s director of public policy, told TPM.

The draft notification was twice as long as the letter Cuffari eventually sent to Congress on July 13, and included details that hadn’t made it into the letter.

It states, for example, that the records the Secret Service did produce were heavily redacted, and that the agency “did not indicate who approved or applied the redactions or why such redactions were originally made.”

The draft also reveals that on February 23, over two months after the inspector general’s office renewed its request for text exchanges between 24 Secret Service agents from around the time of the insurrection, the Secret Service “claimed inability to extract text message content” due to a mobile phone system migration carried out in “April 2021” which “wiped all data.” (The Secret Service later revealed that the system migration project was undertaken over three months, and began in January.)

There are other surprising details in the draft notification that are not included in Cuffari’s July letter to Congress. For example, the notification states that the Secret Service agents interviewed “regularly indicate they will not provide documents directly to OIG without the documents first going through an internal review.”

It also notes that the review was carried out “without stating any authority supporting delaying or withholding requested information from OIG.”

Cuffari’s July letter to Congress places the blame on DHS employees, claiming that “DHS personnel have repeatedly told OIG inspectors that they were not permitted to provide records directly to the OIG,” and that the records had to be reviewed by DHS attorneys.

Text messages from other, former high-ranking DHS officials from around the time of the insurrection were also erased. An earlier POGO report and subsequent reporting by the Washington Post revealed that Cuffari’s office had been alerted to those text erasures as well. In a letter grilling Cuffari released on Wednesday, Chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) wondered why Cuffari “did not share that information with Congress.”

“This is the highest profile review his office is conducting, and of massive interest to Congress and the American people,” Hempowicz said, “and Cuffari’s top aides failed to meet the moment every step of the way.”

Dear Reader,

When we asked recently what makes TPM different from other outlets, readers cited factors like honesty, curiosity, transparency, and our vibrant community. They also pointed to our ability to report on important stories and trends long before they are picked up by mainstream outlets; our ability to contextualize information within the arc of history; and our focus on the real-world consequences of the news.

Our unique approach to reporting and presenting the news, however, wouldn’t be possible without our readers’ support. That’s not just marketing speak, it’s true: our work would literally not be possible without readers deciding to become members. Not only does member support account for more than 80% of TPM’s revenue, our members have helped us build an engaged and informed community. Many of our best stories were born from reader tips and valuable member feedback.

We do what other news outlets can’t or won’t do because our members’ support gives us real independence.

If you enjoy reading TPM and value what we do, become a member today.

Latest News
Comments
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Investigations Desk:
Reporters:
Newswriter:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: