Secret Service Denied Meeting With Trump Campaign. Or Did They?

A secret service agent looks on as Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally, Wednesday, Aug. 10, 2016, in Abingdon, Va. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Earlier today, CNN reported that the Secret Service had had a discussion with Donald Trump about his poorly thought out remarks regarding the second amendment earlier this week. Remarks which could either be a joke or an encouragement of assassination of his political opponent which, generally speaking, indicates it wasn’t the best use of the English language.


Via CNN:

A US Secret Service official confirms to CNN that the USSS has spoken to the Trump campaign regarding his Second Amendment comments.

“There has been more than one conversation” on the topic, the official told CNN. But it’s unclear at what level in the campaign structure the conversations occurred.

Trump was very quick to deny the story.

And now Donald Trump claims vindication.

Interesting that he doesn’t link the article. I wonder why. Could it be because that’s not what the Secret Service said?

Via Reuters (in the article he didn’t bother to link). Emphasis mine.

A federal official on Wednesday denied a news report that the U.S. Secret Service had formally spoken with Republican Donald Trump’s presidential campaign regarding his suggestion a day earlier that gun rights activists could stop Democratic rival Hillary Clinton from curtailing their access to firearms.


In fact, the headline is Official: No formal Secret Service discussions with Trump camp on remark. Again, emphasis mine.

In my experience, the addition of “formal” is usually not an accident. This indicates that it’s at least still plausible that the Secret Service pulled Trump aside and said something to the equivalent of “Knock it off, groucho.”

I don’t have direct access to Mr. Trump for some reason, but I think it would be lovely if any reporters that do were to ask for clarification on why the word “formal” was needed to describe the absence of a meeting.

If someone asks why Trump deserves such intense scrutiny when he has already answered the question? Just point out the documented evidence that he’s a pathological liar. This should more than justify the need for triple confirmation.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos