Previous CIA operative convicted for physically harming a fellow agent during a professional event.
Daniel J. Burgess was found guilty of misdemeanor assault and battery in the Loudoun County District Court on a Wednesday morning, and was given a six-month sentence, with only 24 hours of this sentence serving time in jail if he maintains a clean record according to the law. He has since lodged an appeal.
In a harrowing testimony, the victim, known solely as "Martha W." in court, detailed how Burgess, their superior at the time, sexually harassed and physically assaulted them. The incident transpired during an office gathering for Burgess's 50th birthday in June 20XX.
According to a statement from a CIA spokesperson, "Following the receipt of a report regarding this matter, the CIA took prompt and decisive measures to limit Burgess's contact with the victim."
Reports suggest that Burgess was eligible for retirement during the time of the incident and chose to retire soon afterward. This decision was criticized by the victim's lawyer, Kevin O'Connor, who argued that the CIA should have taken more punitive action against Burgess. O'Connor stated that Burgess was effectively permitted to retire; however, the CIA spokesperson countered that Burgess had "departed from the Agency in September 20XX."
In a statement delivered to the court, Martha W. described her struggle for justice within a complex and ultimately unproductive process involving her employer.
Per O'Connor, Martha W. sought guidance from the CIA for months on how to report her assault to law enforcement without jeopardizing the interests of her colleagues and their Agency assignments. The CIA, however, did not provide such guidance.
The CIA was not publicly implicated in court proceedings; both O'Connor and representatives of the agency, along with multiple sources, confirmed that the incident took place at a satellite facility belonging to the CIA in Loudoun County, Virginia.
An attorney representing Burgess declined to comment on the matter.
Martha W. testified that she attended Burgess's birthday party in a conference room at the CIA facility on June 9, 20XX. Upon her arrival around 4:15 p.m., Martha W. and other CIA employees testified that Burgess appeared intoxicated. As the celebration carried on, Martha W. claimed, Burgess made inappropriate comments about her age and sexual behavior, mimed explicit sexual acts, and inquired about her personal hygiene, even referring to her bikini area and her cleanliness.
Martha W. testified that she attempted to distance herself from Burgess by adjusting her chair, but he repeatedly pulled it back closer to him. At one point, she said, Burgess raised his legs in the air and stated, "Look at me, I'm [Martha W.]."
Martha W. explained that she chose to remain at the gathering due to her concern about escalating the situation with her superior. However, she eventually testified that Burgess forced his hand beneath her skirt, exposing her undergarments. At that moment, she claimed, she froze, and another colleague decided it was best for them to leave. While departing the room, Martha W. testified that Burgess grabbed her and pressed their chests together in an intimate manner, before forcing a kiss on her.
A female colleague of Martha W.'s, identified only as "Sarah P.", provided a similar account of numerous disturbing sexual comments and intrusive questions. Sarah P. corroborated that Burgess compared the breast sizes of women in the office, simulated sexual acts at the table, and posed inappropriate questions to female colleagues, including Martha W., about their and their partners' use of Viagra. Sarah P., along with a third male colleague, testified to witnessing Burgess's hand under Martha W.'s skirt.
"I felt insignificant, powerless, and humiliated," Martha W. testified, with visible emotion.
Burgess's attorney argued in court that Burgess did not remember the events in question and could not be held responsible for his actions due to his intoxication. He further contended that Martha W. did not verbally reject Burgess's physical advances, remained at the party for an extended period, and did not provide clear cues of discomfort.
The court dismissed these arguments.
"This was unwanted contact," Judge Laura R. Stauss asserted. The judge held that there was "no question in the court's mind that the defendant is guilty."
CIA under scrutiny
The trial follows a series of high-profile cases involving severe punishments for sexual assault and harassment within the CIA.
Last week, a former CIA officer was sentenced to 30 years in prison for drugging and sexually assaulting multiple individuals; another misdemeanor conviction, pending appeal, involves a former CIA trainee who was accused of assaulting another trainee in a Langley stairwell.
Both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees have been gathered testimony from alleged victims of sexual assault and harassment at the agency as part of a multi-year investigation, resulting in proposed changes to the CIA's procedures for managing such cases.
In April, the House council published a report indicating that the CIA had failed to address sexual assault and harassment complaints within its workforce in a consistent and professional manner, and seemingly meted out "little to no accountability or punishment" for perpetrators.
The investigation revealed "chaos and uncertainty" in the process of reporting misconduct claims. It was discovered that victims were dissuaded from talking about their experiences due to the lack of anonymity and inability to obtain confidential help.
In her heartfelt statement, T expressed her exasperation that no one or organization has taken responsibility for holding Mr. Asquith accountable for his harmful decisions and actions.
"It's appalling that individuals who vow to safeguard their nation are the very ones who chose to disregard and ultimately foster an atmosphere where a intoxicated supervisor can and does misuse his power to belittle, humiliate, and even physically harm someone in what ought to be a secure work environment — all the while shielded by claims of 'privacy' and 'secrecy,'" she stated.
"If we continue to manage these matters as if they're just traffic violations, we all ultimately lose out," she asserted.
The agency has endeavored to simplify its reporting procedures for victims, including creating a specific office last year to handle accusations of sexual assault and harassment. In February, the agency revealed the appointment of a federal law enforcement officer to collaborate with that office to facilitate investigations, "including references to the appropriate law enforcement entity or investigative process," according to a July statement from CIA Director Bill Burns.
Some victims have claimed that the agency pressured them to keep silent about instances of sexual assault in fear of revealing their covert status. However, Burns emphasized in his statement that while "we acknowledge that employees may have reservations about engaging with law enforcement ... Agency employees do not require prior approval to contact law enforcement to report a crime."
"The occurrence of a sexual assault or sexual harassment is not classified, although the surrounding circumstances, such as the identities of secret agents or facilities implicated in the allegations, may be," Burns clarified.
In light of the ongoing trial, questions about the CIA's handling of sexual assault and harassment cases have once again come to the forefront of politics. The CIA has faced criticism for its handling of these cases, with several high-profile convictions and investigations highlighting the need for change.
Following the trial, there have been calls for more stringent policies and procedures within the CIA to protect its employees and hold perpetrators accountable. This issue has resonated with many in politics, who see it as a reflection of broader issues related to workplace safety and equality.
