The interactions between Attorney Thomas Gagliardo and his client with the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General (DHS-OIG) are presented in the right frame in sequential order by date starting from top to bottom.

The Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General (DHS-OIG) initially refused to investigate this case. The first time it was reported to them they “lost” the report made to them. The second time it was reported to them through Senator Van Hollen’s office, they referred the case back to the Secret Service to be investigated by their “Office of Professional Responsibility.” Yes, you read that correctly and are not having a stroke. The Office of the Inspector General was brought a significant body of evidence that the Secret Service destroyed evidence ordered produced by a judge and asked the people who likely destroyed the evidence to investigate themselves for wrong doing. You can’t make this stuff up. Then the government wonders why nobody wants to be a whistleblower, in addition to the fact they are routinely retaliated against.

It was no surprise the Office of the Inspector General (DHS-OIG) did not want to investigate this matter. The Office of the Inspector General (DHS-OIG) is really a human resources department for the government with guns and badges. One need only read their annual reports to Congress. The number of senior executives investigated with a finding of no wrongdoing is astounding, and even when there is a finding, the punishment tends to be minimal. We are aware of a case where a low grade GS level employee was turned into OIG for selling Girl Scout cookies for her granddaughter during working hours, and OIG had an agent investigating the matter the day her coworker reported the incident. Yet when handed evidence a federal agent may have destroyed evidence, they do everything they can to avoid opening an investigation.

Eventually Senator Chris Van Hollen pushed DHS-OIG hard enough that they reluctantly opened an “investigation”. An investigation in which they never disclosed a case number, never provided any status updates, never issued a Report of Investigation, and never included in a single annual report to Congress. Attorney Gagilardo speculated OIG’s motivations might be to help the Secret Service find who was leaking information about Special Agent Ellen Ripperger. The fact they wanted the original copies (not electronic) of papers a Secret Service Special Agent left under a doormat for us would suggest OIG wanted to look for fingerprints, DNA, ultraviolet watermarks, microstamping, or anything that might glean a clue as to who the agent(s) were providing information. If true, that means the law enforcement agency responsible for enforcing the “NO FEAR ACT” to prevent whistleblower reprisals was helping another federal law enforcement agency to commit whistleblower reprisals.

OIG at a minimum provided the pretense of conducting an investigation. We know there was an investigation because DHS-OIG provided Senator Van Hollen two written memos stating first the investigation was close to completion on August 19, 2019, but then writing later when Van Hollen followed up that it could not provide a definitive timeline for when it would complete its investigation. We further know there was an investigation because Attorney Gagliardo and his client met with three OIG Agents who requested all case materials from him. Those materials were under a protective order by Judge Eates and the Secret Service refused to allow Attorney Gagliardo to release the materials to OIG, but instead said it would provide the materials to OIG. We have no knowledge of the Secret Service ever doing so. We also know for certain Attorney Gagliardo’s client gave OIG written permission to release the results of his polygraph examination by the Secret Service to the Layfayette Instrument company for the express purpose of an examination of authenticity. We also know that OIG agents told attorney Gagliardo that they sent the audio file of his client’s polygraph (which was not audible due to a “microphone malfunction”) out for forensic analysis which had been completed. We speculate if the audio was inaudible due to a true microphone malfunction, OIG would have immediately closed the case at that point, but they did not.

We know that Senator Van Hollen and his aide kept in continual contact with DHS-OIG asking for updates and when a completed investigation could be expected. They never got a response. Senator Van Hollen made a final request to DHS-OIG in April 2024. DHS-OIG never even acknowledged there was an investigation to Senator Van Hollen and stated they were aware of a FOIA request by his constituent in February of 2020 which they were “working on” but “not certain” when they would respond. (Incidentally they have 20 days to respond by law or offer in writing to modify or limit the scope of the request, of which they did neither, violating the law.) Senator Van Hollen at that point seemingly gave up his efforts on our behalf. We suspect someone at a high level in the government told Senator Van Hollen unless he wanted his next job to be handing out cologne and towels in the Senate restrooms to quit making inquiries on this matter. That is unfortunate because we elect our elected officials to be leaders, not to knuckle under when wrongdoing has occurred.