Angry Hillary threw book at Secret Service agent

WASHINGTON – In a fit of rage, former first lady Hillary Clinton threw a book at a Secret Service agent, hitting him in the back as he was driving her here in a limousine during the 1996 campaign, former Secret Service officers and agents tell WorldNetDaily.

She accused the plainclothes agent of "eavesdropping" on her conversation with another passenger in the back seat of the limo, the agents say. The missile she hurled was a painful message for him to mind his own business.

"The book hit him in the back, and it wasn't lobbed – she was angry," said a retired uniformed Secret Service officer familiar with the incident.

"She was under the impression that he was eavesdropping on her conversation," he added. "Here he's the driver, but he was eavesdropping? I don't know how you get around that."

"It was in a limo," he said. "There's no separation in hers, not the one she was in."

The veteran officer, who helped coordinate security in advance of President Clinton's trips, says the book was in the back of the limo. "It was something that she was carrying."

He said both Clintons viewed Secret Service personnel as "Republican spies," since many of them worked in the previous Republican administrations. And they were "very skeptical of us."

Another retired Secret Service veteran, a plainclothes agent assigned to Clinton's security detail, corroborated the book-throwing account. "Yeah, it's true," he said, without elaborating.

Though retired from the service, both White House veterans have found jobs in the Homeland Security Department, and they asked that their names be withheld. Attempts to reach the driver assigned to Hillary's protective detail, also retired from the service and working in another federal agency, were unsuccessful.

A Washington Metro Police detective also recalled hearing of the incident at the time, adding that the former first lady "was pretty sh--ty to the Secret Service guys."

Phone calls to Clinton's office were not returned. The New York senator is on a book tour.

The Secret Service officer who did presidential advance said she often spoke in "unacceptable language to officers and to agents."

He said the lack of respect stemmed in large part from an overriding suspicion allegedly held by the Clintons that agents doubled as Republican plants, relaying dirt to the first couple's political enemies.

"When they came into office, because the Republicans were in for so long, they thought everybody in the Secret Service was a Republican spy," said the Secret Service veteran, who calls himself an Independent.

Soon after they took over the White House, the Clintons had agents removed from sensitive areas and permanently eliminated their posts, he says.

"They requested specific posts be removed so that agents in the uniformed division were out of earshot of the conversations," he said.

"For instance, inside the mansion itself, I know of at least two [posts] that were relocated," the former agent added. "One was relocated away from the residence; one was relocated away from the Oval Office."

He said Secret Service brass told agents to keep an "arm's distance," as much as they could, from the Clintons.

"We were all spies, all spies. I mean, it was a big joke," he said. "We were giving each other secret names, like 'Agent X, it's time for you to be relieved from your post for right now,' as if we were Soviet agents or something."

The former first lady is said to be considering a run for the White House in 2008.

Her alleged book-throwing tantrum does not fit the cool and controlled demeanor the freshman senator conveys in public.

But early in the Clinton administration, Newsweek reported that Hillary had thrown a lamp at the president in a fit of anger. She later denied the incident took place while suggesting, ironically, that the Secret Service spread the story

6.18.111 ASSAULT ON A FEDERAL OFFICER [WITH A

DANGEROUS OR DEADLY WEAPON] (18 U.S.C. § 111)

The crime of assault on a federal officer [with a dangerous or deadly weapon], as charged in [Count of] the indictment, has three essential elements, which are:

One, the defendant forcibly assaulted (describe federal officer by position and name)1 [with a deadly or dangerous weapon]2;

Two, the assault was done voluntarily and intentionally;3 and

Three, at the time of the assault (name of officer) was doing what he was employed by the federal Government to do.4

An "assault" is any intentional and voluntary attempt or threat to do injury to the person of another, when coupled with the apparent present ability to do so sufficient to put the person against whom the attempt is made in fear of immediate bodily harm.5

"Forcibly" means by use of force. Physical force is sufficient. You may also find that a person who, in fact, has the present ability to inflict bodily harm upon another and who threatens or attempts to inflict bodily harm upon such person acts forcibly. In such case, the threat must be a present one.

[A "deadly and dangerous weapon" is an object used in a manner likely to endanger life or inflict serious bodily harm.]6

(Insert paragraph describing Government's burden of proof; see Instruction 3.09, supra.)

Committee Comments

See 2 Edward J. Devitt, et al., FEDERAL JURY PRACTICE AND INSTRUCTIONS: Criminal §§ 42.01-42.11 (4th ed. 1990); Fifth Circuit Offense Instructions 1 and 2; Ninth Circuit Instruction 8.01; Eleventh Circuit Offense Instructions 1.1 and 1.2.

If "self defense" is raised as an affirmative defense, an appropriate instruction setting forth the defense and the government's burden thereon should be given. See United States v. Alvarez, 755 F.2d 830, 842-43 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 905 (1985); see also Instructions 3.09, supra, and 9.00 and 9.04, infra.

Notes on Use

1 Whether a person performing the functions delegated to the assault victim is a federal officer or employee within the meaning of section 111 is a question of law for the court. See, e.g., United States v. Oakie, 12 F.3d 1436 (8th Cir. 1993); United States v. Lopez, 586 F.2d 978, 979-980 (2d Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 923 (1979); United States v. Patrin, 575 F.2d 708, 712-14 (9th Cir. 1978). However, whether the assault victim was in fact acting as an officer or employee, and whether he was performing federal "investigative, inspection, or law enforcement functions" at the time of the alleged assault, are fact questions for the jury. United States v. Oakie, 12 F.3d at 1440. The Committee recommends that the specific title of the federal officer be used.

2 This language must be used if it is charged that the assault was with a deadly or dangerous weapon. The question of what constitutes a "deadly and dangerous weapon" is a question of fact for the jury. United States v. Czeck, 671 F.2d 1195, 1197 (8th Cir. 1982). A thorough discussion of this question is found in United States v. Moore, 846 F.2d 1163, 1166-67 (8th Cir. 1988).

3 The assault must be intentional, even though the term "willful" is not used in the statute. United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 684 (1975); Potter v. United States, 691 F.2d 1275, 1280 (8th Cir. 1982); United States v. Manelli, 667 F.2d 695, 696 (8th Cir. 1981). The requirement that the defendant acted "voluntarily and intentionally" would appear to satisfy that element. United States v. Hanson, 618 F.2d 1261, 1264-65 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 854 (1980). In United States v. Sweet, 985 F.2d 443 (8th Cir. 1993), the court stated "[n]less used in the statute itself or unless the crime falls within that rare type of offense where defendant's knowledge that [s]he is violating the law is an element of the offense, there is no occasion for an instruction defining specific intent." Id. at 444-45 (quoting United States v. Dougherty, 763 F.2d 970, 974 (8th Cir. 1985).

The defendant need not know that the victim is a federal officer. United States v. Goldson, 954 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1992); United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. at 684-86; United States v. Alvarez, 755 F.2d 830, 842-47 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Maynard, 452 F.2d 1087, 1088 (1st Cir. 1971).

4 The statute uses the phrase "while engaged in . . . the performance of his official duties." This means simply acting within the scope of what that person is employed to do and the test is whether the person is acting within that area of responsibility. United States v. Murdock, 826 F.2d 771, 774 n.2 (8th Cir. 1987).

It is also a violation of the statute to assault a federal officer "on account of" or in retaliation for his discharge of his official duties. E.g., United States v. Lopez, 710 F.2d 1071, 1074 n.3 (5th Cir. 1983). If this conduct is charged, Element Three should be so modified.

5 See United States v. Maynard, "assault is the act of putting in fear." 452 F.2d at 1088. This case covers the typical situation of a firearm being pointed at an agent.

6 See United States v. Hollow, 747 F.2d 481, 482 (8th Cir. 1984). "Serious bodily harm" has been defined as more than minor injury, but not necessarily injury creating a substantial likelihood of death. Moore, 846 F.2d at 1166; United States v. Webster, 620 F.2d 640, 641-42 (7th Cir. 1980)

Thats ANY federal employee. Right down to the lowest clerk.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.