The transcript of the Vickers/Lemon conversation is available.
LEMON: Yeah. You told my colleague this morning, Brook Baldwin, this afternoon, that you were -- you wanted to take him out to the wood shed after that comment?VICKERS: Yeah, that's what we do here in the south, you know. I think a lot of us would like to get hold of some of the news media and do the same thing. ...
Here is an exchange that is interesting. Take Sciutto's report. He says the Secret Service concern is with people who might misinterpret Trump's remarks. Then ask yourself, is CNN in that group of people?
BLITZER: The Secret Service protects Donald Trump, protects Hillary Clinton, protects the president of the United States and their respective families. They don't ever want to get involved in politics.SCIUTTO: I mean, I think you could say they're one of the most apolitical organizations in Washington. They do not want to get involved, but I've spoken as well, in addition to this official with the Secret Services, to many former Secret Service agents, just to ask them what the protocol would be. I asked them, for instance, if a private citizen were to make similar comments, if you or I, Wolf, would have made these comments, would we be interviewed by the Secret Service, and they said yes, you would likely be.
But the difference with a public figure is that it's more impactful because a public figure like Donald Trump has many followers so the danger becomes among those followers, could there be someone who is unhinged who takes that, who arguably misinterprets it, right? If we take Donald Trump's explanation of his intentions at face value, they can arguably misinterpret it and then use that as some sort of spark to act on it. That is their concern.
CNN Situation Room - August 10, 2016
Now, I don't mean to say that CNN is admitting they are unhinged. But this seems to me an admission that they are misinterpreting Trump's remark. The difference between CNN and the hypothetical unhinged person is that CNN won't perpetrate violence directly, on their misinterpretation, Instead they will report their misinterpretation as though it is not a misinterpretation.
A couple more blockquotes, sorry to take so much space, but I have them collected, and rather than risk scattering them randomly elsewhere, you have to scroll past them here. The first one following is an early report. My only remarks are to notice how he describes his sources, and try to figure out what he is saying.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Brooke, this just in. Official with the U.S. Secret Service tells me that the Secret Service has spoken to the Trump campaign regarding his Second Amendment comments. In fact, I'm told there has been more than one conversation regarding those comments with the Trump campaign. I'm told by the Secret Service that the campaign's response was that he did not intend to incite violence.But I'll tell you, Brooke, I've been speaking to a number of former Secret Service agents as well. They have said that these comments are the kinds that are taken very seriously, and that if, for instance, a private citizen were to say them, that private citizen, you or me, would certainly be interviewed by the Secret Service. But with this added detail, that because Donald Trump has such a large following, that, in fact, the potential danger of comments like that could have greater impact because people listen to them. That could be a deranged person, perhaps, but that those comments have an effect. ...
JIM SCIUTTO: Well, again, speaking to former Secret Service agents, there's nothing illegal about what he said because Donald Trump did not threaten, for instance, the life of someone else. So this is not in the legal realm. You aren't talking about going down any path towards charges. It is purely in the abundance of caution realm. One former Secret Service agent described it to me, Secret Service has a duty of care. Part of their job in protecting principals is in not only removing potential threats, but also preventing the pathway to threats. They'll often talk about it, intent, being one of those concerns being that comments like this, in fact, could create an intent. So that's why they take this very seriously.
So on a legal path I think you would presume, Brooke, that this conversation, these conversations, is as far as it goes, assuming it ends there.
That is gibberish, all around. "The potential danger of comments like this could have greater impact because people listened to them ..." That's nonsense talk.
And I really enjoyed the, "this is the end of it, unless it isn't" observation. Brilliant!
Finally, one more. This is a recent conversation on the veracity of CNN's "Secret Service investigated the Trump campaign" report.
CUOMO: So you have operations that you have to do differently and also seems to be a level of sophistication in terms of dealing with perceived threat. Like this situation with Trump and what he was saying to the crowd in North Carolina about the second amendment, the Secret Service talking to a campaign about language used. I've never heard of that before.But how would that conversation go exactly?
BONGINO: Yes. Well, the Secret Service did not talk to the campaign about that. That's not what I'm getting from my sources.
CUOMO: As you know, Jim Sciutto's got two sources that said they contacted the campaign, two different sources, high level, at the Secret Service. Assuming it did happen, how would it go?
BONGINO: Yes, listen, I love Jim, but again, that's not the story I'm getting. What probably happened is Donald Trump has a Secret Service detail, so they're talking to him all the time. He probably mentioned something in one of the armored cars or one of the limos, and I guess that's how the conversation happened.
But as for any formal investigation, you know, Chris I was on your network about this topic. I would be absolutely stunned if they had mentioned to him anything about this in terms of any formal investigation. It would be a political decision. It would not be an investigatory one. He was not making any kind of a veiled threat. It's clear as day to anyone who listened to the whole speech.
Unlike Brianna Keiliar and Erin Burnout yesterday, both of whom insisted the CNN story was true, Cuomo did not object to what Bongino just said.
Thanks, Trump’s lawyer Cohen said their was no conversation from any USSS about the remark. Period! He said this on CNN.