Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Agency Chief Gets Grilled; $500 Million Art Heist Still Unsolved 25 Years Later. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired March 17, 2015 - 10:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

REP. JOHN CARTER (R), TEXAS: I know you're new on the job. I told you when we visited, you got a big job. You're going to have to make heads roll. If there's a place to send people in your agency that is the Mojave Desert of the Secret Service, maybe some people need to be sent to the Mojave Desert so they know that their behavior is unacceptable. You think about all that.

<10:30:00> The chairman has got plenty of hearings he's got to attend. I'm now going to turn to the chairman for any questions he may have.

REP. HAROLD ROGERS (R), KENTUCKY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I cannot believe you did not learn of this incident from Wednesday when it happened until Monday. What happened? Why did you not learn of this incident immediately?

JOE CLANCY, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE: Yes, sir. And that's what we are trying to find out through, obviously, the office of the inspector general.

ROGERS: I don't care about the office of inspector general. God love them and good luck to them. You're in charge.

CLANCY: Yes, sir.

ROGERS: This is an administrative problem you have. Why did you not get word about this incident from your subordinates about this incident for five or six days?

CLANCY: Yes, sir. Not knowing all of the facts -- first of all, you're right, Mr. Chairman. There's no -- at the least of the description of these events, I should have still been informed of what transpired that evening. Any time you have a senior level on the President's detail who is alleged to have even come through a secure area as he did that evening, I should have been informed.

We're following up on that. And there will be accountability. I know that our workforce is listening today as we go through this hearing. And they're waiting to see how people are going to be held accountable.

This is my first test. We'll wait for these facts to come out. We'll wait for that due process and we'll go back through the reports that were written that evening and we'll go back through the OIG will interview these mid level supervisors and going up the chain. Mr. Chairman, you're absolutely correct. And I think part of this, again goes to a culture of trust. Do you have the trust in your leadership that you can bring this to leadership's attention? And I have to work to earn that trust and I'm going to do that through my actions.

ROGERS: Well, your actions in my judgment should be punishment, termination, firing people who have subordinated their command. You can't run an agency like this, for God's sakes or any other agency unless you have discipline in the ranks.

And this is a breakdown, to put it mildly, of discipline within the ranks of your agency and that's a cancer that can consume you. Now, were these people given a sobriety test?

CLANCY: They were not, sir, to my understanding.

ROGERS: Why not?

CLANCY: Sir, I can't answer that.

ROGERS: Who said not to do that?

CLANCY: Sir, I can't answer that either. I don't know that those facts have been --

ROGERS: Who discovered that this had happened?

CLANCY: It was an anonymous e-mail that first was published and it may have been several days later. I don't have the facts on when that was released -- that e-mail. But typically in an event like that, there would be some chatter. There would be some discussion if it occurred the way it's been described.

ROGERS: Who was the agent in charge at that time at the White House?

CLANCY: There's a watch commander at a captain level who would have been in charge of the White House complex at that time. Certainly during that incident with --

ROGERS: Who was that?

CLANCY: By name, sir?

ROGERS: Yes, sir.

CLANCY: I believe it is Braun, sir.

ROGERS: Bronson?

CLANCY: Braun -- B-R-A-U-N and my staff can correct me if that's incorrect.

ROGERS: He was the person in charge of the White House detail at that period of time? Is that correct?

CLANCY: Yes, sir.

ROGERS: Did he report any of this activity to anyone else?

CLANCY: No, sir.

ROGERS: Have you talked to him?

CLANCY: I have not spoken to him, sir. Again, as frustrating as it is for all of you on the committee, it is frustrating to me as well to have to wait to do this.

ROGERS: Why do you have to wait?

CLANCY: Sir, I don't want to interfere with this investigation. In the past when we've seen investigations where different people have interviewed witnesses, stories are perceived differently. And I don't want to have any impact on that investigation.

ROGERS: Have you asked Braun for a report on what happened?

CLANCY: I have asked to see the report. I have seen nothing that indicates -- any written report indicating this event as described had occurred.

ROGERS: What kind of barricade was it that they broke?

<10:34:59> CLANCY: Sir, it is an orange construction type barrel, which when the vehicle approached, initially it backed up because on 15th street and E street which you may be familiar with -- you may have come in sometimes at 15th and E street. This orange barrel didn't allow the vehicle to go through. It was to the right of the bumper.

So they nudged this barrel out of the way. The barrel did not fall over. They nudged it over. They moved up to the checkpoint where the officer typically would be positioned and it appeared that they were showing their badges to go through the checkpoint. And that's the extent of the video that we saw as they continued to progress forward.

ROGERS: Why were they there?

CLANCY: My understanding is that the passenger in the seat in the vehicle was returning to get his vehicle. They had been at the reception and they left together to -- the passenger had his vehicle parked at the White House complex.

ROGERS: Needless to say, we want to get to the bottom of it right away. I'm disappointed that you have not waged your own vigorous, tough investigation of this that occurred on White House grounds by security agents who appear to be inebriated. To say you're not investigating because you want the inspector general of the department to investigate is hogwash. What do you think?

CLANCY: Sir, basing it on my limited experience since I came back. I read the report, sir, on 2011, the shooting from Constitution Avenue that surrounds Constitution Avenue. One of the officers, I remember reading when I first came back, was that this individual was interviewed three different times by our agency, by the OIG I believe and by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. My recollection is that each of those interviews was different which distorted the facts.

What were the facts? And what did that officer truly see and hear? And for right or wrong, that resonated with me. I didn't want any perception that that we would be -- it can be intimidating if someone from my staff goes to one of these uniformed officers and said what did you hear? What did you write? What happened that evening? They may tell me and my staff one thing. And another from the OIG may interview them and they may have a different perception of the words spoken. Words are important.

And I'm frustrated. I'm very frustrated that we didn't know about this. I didn't know about this until Monday. I'm frustrated that I can't act until we get all of the facts because I know that our workforce is waiting. What's your action going to be? I just don't want to act improperly too soon.

Let me just say this. The President, the first family, they're safe. We've moved these individuals to nonsupervisory positions rather than administrative leave where they are getting paid for no work. We can still get work out of them but in a different capacity.

ROGERS: They're still getting paid.

CLANCY: Yes, sir.

ROGERS: No reduction in pay. No penalties, financial or otherwise, right?

CLANCY: No financial penalties. Sir, I would say that I'm sure they are paying a penalty right now.

ROGERS: Well, unfortunately this is the last in a long line of episodes somewhat similar -- drinking, carousing, on and off duty, that this agency has suffered these last few years. It's not working right, Mr. Director.

CLANCY: Yes, sir.

ROGERS: We have to have changes. You have to be the one that makes those changes. I don't sense at this moment that you have the determination to make that happen. Am I wrong?

CLANCY: Sir, I would disagree with you with that with all respect. I will say that there's an element within our agency -- there's an element within our agency that does cope with the stresses that many of you have mentioned today by using alcohol. There's no question we have that element.

<10:40:09> We also have other elements in our agency that go to a different route. Some go to exercise. Some go to religion. Some go to family to cope with these stresses. We do have an element that goes to alcohol. Three or four weeks ago we kicked off an initiative, a work/life

initiative to look at stresses that our people are under. They are considerable. There's no excuse for the actions. We have to take -- there has to be self-discipline, self-accountability. We've got to find a way to help some of these people that are going toward alcohol to solve their -- as a coping mechanism.

ROGERS: Well, I'm concerned about their health as well. I'm more concerned about the health of the President of the United States and who is protecting him from harm.

CLANCY: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

ROGERS: If we have special agents on the grounds at night in the White House ramming a barricade, drunk, it seems to me that the only discipline that you could exert would be caused by the ability of you and your staff to terminate as punishment so that every other agent knows I don't want to go there. That director is going to fire me. That's what makes the mind work. What do you think about that?

CLANCY: I agree with you. I think deep down within our agency as in others people want to see discipline. People want to be disciplined. They want to have people held accountable. I just want to respect the due process as frustrating as that is. And then let my actions speak for how we're going to move forward in this agency.

ROGERS: We'll be watching.

CLANCY: Yes, sir.

ROGERS: And waiting.

CLANCY: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

REP. NITA M. LOWEY (D), NEW YORK: I want to thank you but there's so many hearings today. I just want to follow-up briefly because with all due respect, I'm just shocked by your testimony. First of all, you said it wouldn't have been reported to you other than a whistle- blower. I mean it wasn't someone in the chain of command that reported it to you.

And then you said -- what really shocks me -- it will take time to change the culture. I don't understand this one bit. It seems to me it should take time to help people who think this is the culture to go get another job. How can we as members of congress have respect for an agency that feels it's ok? We're not talking about someone drinking at a party. We're talking about a respected member of the Secret Service who was absolutely drunk.

How many people do you know -- how many friends do you know who may go to a party and then take a car and go ram it into a fence or some other barricade? I find this testimony shocking.

Following up on my colleague, I just don't understand it. I would think it would take five minutes to change the culture before you even know the fact you can say based on the allegations, if in fact you were not aware that this kind of activity is inappropriate for a member of the Secret Service, you better get it now and go find another job.

That's why I'm so (inaudible). I can't believe you said it will take time to change the culture. Can you explain to me why it's ok for a member of the Secret Service to get so inebriated that they would take a car and run into a barricade?

CLANCY: If those are the facts and they may come out exactly as you stated them, then you are absolutely correct. We have a table of penalties which explains exactly how they can be disciplined. When I said the culture, it's going to take some time for the culture to be changed -- specifically I'm talking about if there was an event that night as is described. Let's assume that it was as you described it.

Why wasn't that reported up to my office? I think that's a long standing process possibly where people don't want to relay bad information. We have to prevent that. But to your point, you're right that my actions are going to determine how that culture is changed.

<10:45:01> I don't have the ability to just fire people at will. In the government, my understanding is you cannot do that. It doesn't mean that after due process there aren't some actions.

LOWEY: Maybe my statement is not clear.

RANDI KAYE, CNN ANCHOR: All right. You've been listening there to the head of the Secret Service, Joe Clancy.

Let's bring in White House correspondent Michelle Kosinski. She's live at the White House. Michelle, first off, your reaction to what we've just heard there from the head of the agency there and how do you expect the White House will react?

MICHELLE KOSINSKI, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Well, these members of the appropriations committee did not disappoint in the tough questions they're asking, the comments they're making. But from what Director Clancy is saying I think to some extent is what we expected. He's not going to go into a lot of detail because it is under a higher investigation.

But I think there are two really interesting things here. First of all he does admit that he did not find out about any incident at the White House until five days after it happened. That is true. He said that when we started asking around after this came out in the "Washington Post", that his staff did not know about it either. He says that he had a good stern talking to them about that.

He also said something that stood out -- that there wasn't any chatter about an incident at least not as initially reported that these agents might have been drunk; that they careened through this crime scene investigation and slammed into a barrier. That's how this story initially came up. He said that it would be unusual if it happened in the way it was reported that there was no talk internally about that. He's trying to be diplomatic saying well, Congressman, Congressman, if it happened in the way described, yes, that's a huge problem. He clearly does not believe that it happened in that way, Randi.

KAYE: Right. And he also there -- also went ahead to say he actually learned about it through an anonymous e-mail, not even through the chain of command as the committee pointed out.

KOSINSKI: Right. But I think he's saying that that's the way it initially came to light publicly. And he's referring to the fact as they were reported that that's how it started circulating and that's when he started asking questions. You know, members of this appropriation subcommittee are very, very frustrated that first of all, he hasn't launched his own tough, vigorous investigation. He says he can't because it's now in the hands of the inspector general's office and they're upset that these guys weren't fired or given some other penalty. Well, his response is again, it's under investigation. It's not as if he has the authority to just fire them on the spot without giving them due process.

KAYE: Yes. Also just very quickly, fascinating that he could not answer the question as to why these two agents weren't given a sobriety test. He didn't know who made that decision or why.

KOSINSKI: Yes. But he also alluded to the fact that he wasn't sure that that even happened. That's the same thing that we've been hearing from our law enforcement sources who are familiar with the investigation -- that they're not so sure that that is even a true part of this story. He indicated that here.

He also indicated that he had seen the videotape. He said it was brief. But he said that the agents were going very slowly. They didn't crash into anything. They nudged a barrel out of the way to get to the first checkpoint. They went through these checkpoints without incident.

This has turned -- you know, it's gone from being this embarrassing scandal to being kind of a mystery as to how this even evolved in the first place. How the information got out and is this some kind of cover-up of drunken agents driving around in their government car or is it more along the lines of disgruntled people within the Secret Service, you know, kind of raising it after the fact.

KAYE: Right. Well, it was certainly interesting to see the chairman call it a breakdown of discipline in the ranks and a cancer in the agency. I'm sure we'll be talking much more about this.

Michelle Kosinski at the White House, appreciate you weighing in on this as well. I'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

<10:52:28> KAYE: Rembrandt, Monet, Degas -- among 13 paintings not seen now for 25 years. Two men disguised as police officers pulling off a $500 million art heist in just a matter of minutes. Empty spaces on the wall and empty frames still hang as a reminder of this unsolved cold case.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: Inside these walls priceless works of art but also a mystery that has lasted for 25 years.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I like to say it is Boston's last best secret.

KAYE: On March 18, 1990 $500 million worth of art stolen from a Boston museum, the biggest art heist in history.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is the creme de la creme of art recovery.

KAYE: How did the thieves get inside? How did they get away with 13 priceless pieces? And a quarter century later, where are the paintings?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Once they leave, they're never heard from again.

KAYE: In his only television interview, hear from the security guard who let the thieves in. Was this an inside job?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I'm the guy who opened up the door. They are obviously going to be looking at me.

KAYE: Who else are investigators looking at and will the art works by masters like Rembrandt, Monet and Degas ever be recovered?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whoever has them just is waiting for the right time.

KAYE: It's the $500 million question. Who pulled off the greatest art heist in history?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: It is a fascinating case, one that I've been following for years. Let's talk more about this museum mystery with the Christopher Marinello. He is founder and director of Art Recovery International.

Christopher -- thanks so much for joining us to talk about this. First, help our viewers understand, if you will, the importance of these works.

CHRISTOPHER MARINELLO, ART RECOVERY INTERNATIONAL: Well, these were left to the city of Boston for the education and enjoyment of the people of Boston. I mean these are some of the most fabulous masterpieces you will ever see -- Vermeers, Monets, Rembrandts.

KAYE: And it's been 25 years now since they went missing. How confident are you that they will ever be recovered?

MARINELLO: Well, we had a case just last week where the two sculptures were missing for 30 years and then a few weeks before that, 32 years. So we find artwork is recovered either very quickly after the theft or a generation after. That 30-year time period is coming up in just five years on the Isabella Stewart Gardner case.

KAYE: And this week, I want to tell you about this, the "Boston Globe" published this open letter, which I'm sure you've probably seen, asking for the return of these paintings. I just want to read a part of it to you.

<10:55:06> The writer says "Are you a fool for instance or just stupid? There's a big difference. We're all more or less stupid. We do stupid things in our youth. We do different kind of stupid things as we get older. It doesn't really improve. I, for instance am surely stupid to think that 25 years after the Gardner museum theft you are going to listen to the plea of an art critic."

That's who wrote that open letter -- it was an art critic. What is your reaction to that? Will it have any type of impact?

MARINELLO: I really don't think so. I think the thieves that took these pictures immediately tried to cash them out and when they realized how hot this story was, they went underground. And I think now that $5 million reward that has been posted by the trustees of the museum might be tempting. But they are a little bit afraid of approaching law enforcement.

I will reiterate my offer at no cost and approved by law enforcement to serve as an intermediary between whoever has these paintings and that $5 million reward.

KAYE: If you had to guess, what do you think this artwork is worth today?

MARINELLO: Well, we've seen figures of half a billion dollars, which is not that unusual. But really these paintings are valueless. They can't be sold. They can't be exhibited. They are stolen works. The only value is in that recovery of that reward -- $5 million. If someone has these -- yes, go ahead.

KAYE: No, I was going to say because the FBI has said that they know who the thieves are. What is stopping them from recovering the art?

MARINELLO: Well, the thieves move these on very quickly. I mean in my view these are being held by somebody in their late 60s or early 70s using these and thinks they're going to cash in one way either on a reward or use it as a get out of jail free card. So if they are arrested, they can use them as a bargaining chip to reduce their sentence in jail.

KAYE: And it's really -- as I said a fascinating case.

Christopher Marinello, nice to chat with you about it, as well. And make sure to watch CNN tonight at 9:00 p.m. Eastern time and Pacific time for a "CNN SPECIAL REPORT: THE $500 MILLION QUESTION, WHO PULLED OFF THE GREATEST ART HEIST IN HISTORY". Again that's tonight right here on CNN.

Thanks so much for joining me today. I'm Randi Kaye.

"AT THIS HOUR" with Berman and Bolduan right after a break.

10:57:35

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)