14

I've been seeing a lot of posts from conservative news sites about Secret Service agents claiming that Hillary Clinton said horrible things to them, such as this and others.

Many of these things seem fairly damning, yet I never see them anywhere but the typical conservative blogs. This seems to indicate to me that the charges are false, but I've been unable to find much useful information to go on.

  • 20
    Holy Cow, have we sunk so low that one person swearing at another person once in a 25 year political career is considered newsworthy? – DJClayworth Oct 13 '16 at 21:25
  • 9
    To hear the internet tell it, the Secret Service sure are blabbermouths, for an organization with some pretty specific thoughts on talking about the actions of their charges. – femtoRgon Oct 13 '16 at 21:38
  • 1
    What evidence would it take to convince you of this either way? This article seems to present all the evidence we are likely to find - someone anonymously says she did. – Oddthinking Oct 13 '16 at 23:19
  • 2
    Note to any answerers: I wrote an answer based on this Snopes article. I assumed it described the same (alleged) incident. It was suggested by @Brythan that the differences were large enough that it might not be. I couldn't be sure, so I deleted the answer. Thanks Brythan for the feedback. – Oddthinking Oct 14 '16 at 3:13
  • @DJClayworth Meh... Probably not as newsworthy as "We came, we saw, he died [laughter]", but still kinda interesting, I guess? At least on par with the normal gossip on the news. – Revetahw says Reinstate Monica Oct 16 '16 at 6:32
7

The link you cited says,

‘​Good morning, ma’am,” a member of the uniformed Secret Service once greeted Hillary Clinton. “F*** off,” she replied. That exchange is one among many that active and retired Secret Service agents shared with Ronald Kessler ...

It's a unverified claim by a Secret Service agent which appears in this book written by Ronald Kessler. The agent didn't provide any evidence to Ronald for the claim (it's a hearsay). And it can't be confirmed since Hillary hasn't admitted it and the book didn't provide any evidence for it. The credibility of the book was questioned in this post:

In a calmer world, Ronald Kessler's second book about the U.S. Secret Service might have made more waves. In The First Family Detail, there are salacious details about Bill Clinton's alleged mistress (although Kessler stops short of actually accusing him of having sex with another woman), the cringe-worthy mental image of Joe Biden swimming naked, and a bunch of gossip about current and former protectees. ...

Every book ever written has mistakes. But experts are supposed to get the main things right, and reporters generally follow through when someone tells them something. Too often, Kessler seems to have listened to his sources, written their words down, and then simply printed as fact their allegations or observations without checking on them. I find that weird.

  • 2
    I began to write an answer using a quote from that book, but then deleted it because the book is not a primary source. So it does not help prove or disprove the claim. – Mindwin Oct 25 '16 at 13:53
  • The book is most likely the primary source of the claim cited in the question. At least the primary documented source. Correct me if I am wrong. – Sakib Arifin Oct 25 '16 at 13:59
  • 1
    You discredit the author in the citation (he is known to slapdash stuff onto his books, probably with commercial intent). And in the book quote it is stated as hearsay, on page 16. meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/2154/26789 on book quote guidelines. I was going to use the book on an answer, got even to post it, then deleted. – Mindwin Oct 25 '16 at 15:49
  • 1
    Deroy Murdock at National Review reminds us what an appalling person Hillary is. There is an impressive long litany of such abuse by those sworn to protect her with their life (nationalreview.com/article/441367/…) – K Dog Oct 26 '16 at 4:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .