The Secret Service regularly overlooked examples of agents lying in order to avoid undermining their credibility in court, sources say.
The practice allowed agents to continue testifying in court against assailants or potential threats to the president, according to two sources familiar with the practice.
At times over the last several years, when an officer’s or agent’s behavior was under review for a potential suspension, top managers would determine that the officer lied about some aspect of the case.
But rather than charge them with providing inaccurate information, managers would find some alternative agreement to reduce their punishment, sources said.
“It’s a complete culture of covering up for people,” a source familiar with Secret Service practices told the Washington Examiner. “The policy was we won’t charge them with lying because they can then never be used to testify in any kind of a court case.”
A Secret Service spokesman did not immediately respond to inquiries about accusations of overlooking agents’ deceit.
A Supreme Court ruling in Giglio v. United States held that a reliability of a witness in a court case is so important that failing to disclose to a defense counsel any record of lying or criminal arrests, charges or convictions, along with any other issues affecting credibility justifies a new trial.
Several subsequent high court decisions gave the decision greater influence and reach.
In the case of Kyles v. Whitley, the Supreme Court determined that prosecutors have a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the government’s behalf, including police.
After that ruling, U.S. Attorney offices have required an investigation to determine whether any police officer who is planning to testify in a federal prosecution has any record of dishonesty or untruthfulness.
