mr. ogilvie. first we walk through some facts. the incident happened on the night of march 430 report found that mr. and mr. ogilvie should have reported this incident but neither did. is outright? >> that's correct. >> based on their failure to report, it seems like they were hoping this whole thing would just blow over. two days later on march 6 mr. connolly had his chance to come clean. he had a meeting with his superior, the special agent in charge robert buster are but according to report he never mentioned anything involving this incident. your report says this, and i quote, connolly met with his supervisor transit bus on march the sixth and discussed the office's handling of the confrontation with the suspect in the suspicious package incident. toddling did not mention in the incident involving him and ogilvie. so with this meeting on march 6 mr. connolly basically decided that he would just keep his mouth shut and not tell the supervisor what happened, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and he also would have learned at

mr. ogilvie drove into the evacuated area. what was his explanation for chief simpson failing to report this information to anyone else? mr. roth: again, what he said was he did not report the incident because he did not believe it was his job to do so and assume that connolly was going to self-report. mr. cartwright: i don't think there's any acceptable reason for failing to report a clear incident of misconduct of this nature. the secret service has to make it clear that reporting misconduct is not optional. employees are required to report potential misconduct right up the chain of command. mr. roth, i thank you for your important work on this matter and i yield back, mr. chairman. . mr. chaffetz: now recognize mr. meadows of north carolina for five minutes. mr. meadows: thank you, mr. roth, for your work and thanks to your staff as well. it was timely and quick. i appreciate your frank and direct answers. i especially that because that's not always the case. and so i want to give credit where credit is due. i want to follow

mr. ogilvie. according to the interview notes, mr. ogilvie admitted the context of this e-mail was to check in with mr. connolly about the march 4 incident. is that correct? >> mr. roth: yes, sir. >> rep. clay: in contrast, mr. connolly said the e-mail had nothing to do with the march 4 incident. he claims that he had no idea what this e-mail was about, but no clue. he told investigators and i quote, he did not know with the intent was behind it. it was open-ended. he did not know if it was in reference to march 4 or the busy day that he was year -- he was having. mr. roth, i have one last question for you. do you buy that? >> mr. roth: no, i don't. i believe this was communication between the two to make sure or see whether or not the word had leaked out with regard to the incident that had happened roth two days prior. >> rep. clay: what usually happens when a witness like that is being so dishonest? are there any follow-ups to a person's dishonesty? i guess this was a deposition or just a question? >> mr. roth: it was an interview a

mr. ogilvie. according to the interview notes, mr. ogilvie admitted the context of this e-mail was to check in with mr. connolly about the march 4 incident. is that correct? >> mr. roth: yes, sir. >> rep. clay: in contrast, mr. connolly said the e-mail had nothing to do with the march 4 incident. he claims that he had no idea what this e-mail was about, but no clue. he told investigators and i quote, he did not know with the intent was behind it. it was open-ended. he did not know if it was in reference to march 4 or the busy day that he was year -- he was having. mr. roth, i have one last question for you. do you buy that? >> mr. roth: no, i don't. i believe this was communication between the two to make sure or see whether or not the word had leaked out with regard to the incident that had happened roth two days prior. >> rep. clay: what usually happens when a witness like that is being so dishonest? are there any follow-ups to a person's dishonesty? i guess this was a deposition or just a question? >> mr. roth: it was an interview a

mr. ogilvie admitted to drinking two scotches and one beer. mr. connelly admitted to drinking two beers. they also admitted that they drove the government vehicle that same evening on their way home. is that right? mr. roth: that is correct. rep. cummings: they had a policy that prohibits operating government vehicles while under the influence. your report says that this policy applies only to uniform division officers, not to agents right mr. connelly or mr. ogilvie. this seems a bit ridiculous to me. do you know why? mr. roth: we do not. what we found with a lot of these policies is that they were put in in kind of a piecemeal fashion. we do not have a good explanation as to why it only applied to the uniform division but not the special agents. rep. cummings: the secret service is also part of the homeland security -- department of homeland security, which has its own policy which prevents all employees from drinking alcohol within eight hours of operating a government vehicle. even if we take the statements at their word in terms of how much t

mr. george ogilvie. the allegation was that they drove through a criminal investigation of a potential bomb at the white house be following the incident, there were allegations that the agents were intoxicated after being at a bar found -- downtown. nor were the agents reprimanded in any way. part of the concern was what happened and what did they do about it. how did they report it up the chain of command. instead, everyone involved was told to go home and pretend nothing happens. ranking member cummings and i met with director clancy. he could not answer our questions. clancy said he could not answer the questions. instead, he deferred to the department of homeland security office of the inspector general, who was investigating the matter. that investigation is now complete. we are pleased to have mr. rob here with us today to talk about the conclusions of that investigation. it is time for accountability. the inspector general determined it was more likely than not that the agents' judgment was impair

mr. george ogilvie. the allegation was that they drove through a criminal investigation of a potential bomb at the white house be following the incident, there were allegations that the agents were intoxicated after being at a bar found -- downtown. nor were the agents reprimanded in any way. part of the concern was what happened and what did they do about it. how did they report it up the chain of command. instead, everyone involved was told to go home and pretend nothing happens. ranking member cummings and i met with director clancy. he could not answer our questions. clancy said he could not answer the questions. instead, he deferred to the department of homeland security office of the inspector general, who was investigating the matter. that investigation is now complete. we are pleased to have mr. rob here with us today to talk about the conclusions of that investigation. it is time for accountability. the inspector general determined it was more likely than not that the agents' judgment was impair