Skip to comments.Suspended Secret Service Agent Who Said She Wouldn't Take A Bullet From Trump Removed From Top Post
Posted on 03/20/2017 6:14:57 AM PDT by Kaslin
Kerry O'Grady was the Special Agent in Charge for the U.S. Secret Services Denver district office. Its a prominent position, given that she works with the D.C-based advance teams for all presidential visits into the area. Well, she, like many other anti-Trump folks in the country, just couldnt keep her mouth shut about the 45th presidents upset win over Hillary Clinton. She took to social media, writing on Facebook that she would rather go to jail than take a bullet for Trump. This was posted during the 2016 season. She also voiced her support for Clinton. All of this is barred under the Hatch Act regarding political activity concerning federal employees. Susan Crabtree of The Washington Examiner has been reporting of this story extensively.
The fallout was swift. OGrady was removed from a retired Secret Service member association—The Association of Former Agents U.S. Secret Service—and she was placed on paid administrative leave.
Crabtree now reports that OGrady wont be coming back to her former position, but sources told her that theyre worried she could be transferred to some other federal agency.
The Secret Service will permanently remove a top special agent from her position after an investigation into her Facebook comments that she would rather not defend President Trump or take "a bullet" from him, but some agents are concerned she will simply be transferred to another government job.
About two weeks ago, the Secret Service placed the agent's prior post — the special agent in charge of the Denver District, the top job in that office — on a list of agency openings, according to two Secret Service sources.
Current and former Secret Service agents and officers are worried that top officials at the agency are working to shield O'Grady from being fired.
They are worried that she will be transferred to another division of the Homeland Security Department and allowed to serve out her time until she can retire with a pension as the agency has done with other officials in the public crosshairs.
OGrady did deleted the controversial posts, but we all know that the Internet is forever. She said that her opinions of the president wouldnt have impacted her ability to execute her duties. Apparently, not everyone felt that way.
I wish I could get paid administrative leave . . . .
She wasn’t willing to do her job. She’s a danger to anyone she should be protecting. In sane times, this would have been an immediate firing. She’d be flipping burgers or greeting people at your local big box store.
for us it’s called unemployment.
What exactly does one have to do to get fired from government service in this country?
Looks like a tough (female dog).
She should be fired.
Then audited by the IRS.
Just tell your boss you voted for Trump.
The second last sentence says: “O’Grady DID deleted the controversial posts”. Grammar is hard I guess, even for the Secret Service.
More importantly, I’m glad this agent outed herself as a danger to the President. She needs close scrutiny for the remainder of her stay in the agency.
OK. Point taken, that would probably work.
The only satisfactory response would be a major demotion and significant pay cut.
“The second last sentence says: OGrady DID deleted the controversial posts. Grammar is hard I guess, even for the Secret Service.”
Can’t blame that one on the Secret Service. That seems to be the fault of the article’s author.
“She should be fired.”
You can thank JFK that she won’t be fired. Virtually all the problems with any of the alphabet organization’s trace their problems back to JFK’s 1962 executive order 10988 which authorizes government employees to unionize. To really deal with government corruption, inefficiency, bloated organizariins, etc, this ex order will have to be rescinded. But, holy hell would bust loose should this ever happen. Not even Trump has the stones to do it.
Probably, but we shall see.
Could I kick him out for hating Trump? I know I cannot discriminate on religion, but politics? no law in that!!
Should be FIRED....
LOSE ALL SECURITY CLEARANCES
And no fed job....ever
If not fired transfer to Somalia to look for counterfeiters.
If not fired transfer to Somalia to look for counterfeiters.
Transfer her to an outpost in Alaska (sorry Alaskan Freepers). And a cut in pay would be in order as she will have nowhere to spend the money anyway.
What? President Trump gave her a bullet?
Why isn’t she fired?
If I announced that I wouldn’t do the job I was hired to do, I wouldn’t get to keep that job!
A Criminal Investigator GS-1811 is not allowed union representation; however discipline seems to follow what has been established for union employees. If she is Senior Executive Service a whole different set of standards apply. I believe she is and always has been unfit for any law enforcement or military position!
Does the SS have an office in Deadhorse AK?
Taking a bullet or not is a side issue. She KNOWINGLY broke the law (Hatch Act). Fire her.
They are protected by a bureaucracy of regulations and policy devised to protect their employment. It’s almost as bad as tenured professorship. Believe me, you can’t imagine their benefits and the level of protection they have as federal employees. She should have been terminated as soon as it was verified to be her post on facebook. Instead it confuses others about what crossing the line means. This is the fault of those managing this agent, they are not leaders.
just fire the bitch!
I wouldn't take a bullet FROM him either.
Paging President Trump...another prior president's EO that needs repealing.
She should be canned.
“...transfer her to an outpost in Alaska (sorry Alaskan Freepers). And a cut in pay would be in order as she will have nowhere to spend the money anyway....”
Since it appears that thisPOS cannot be fired, you are absolutely correct. Assign her to the remotest area on the planet. Or better yet, put her on Hitlery’s and Bill’s detail. They hate the SS.
She still gets to retire at age 50, with pay based on her high 3 years base pay.
the level of job security with those who work for the Federal Government is itself a crime against the American taxpayer
What she said is that she would not stop an assassin from trying to kill Trump. Not only should she be fired, she should be investigated for any potential threats against the President. What if she was paid off by someone to allow access to the President?
Trump carries. He should give her a bullet traveling in the high hundreds of feet per second.
Nah, give her low level job with no chance to advance
And accrue a nice pension at the same time.
There is an often used acroynm for the motivations of turncoats and traitors, MICE.
Money - self explanatory, Walker family and Ames as examples.
Coercion - blackmail
Ego - character flaw, under appreciated, smarter than superiors who obstruct the ego ridden.
From her social page remarks she seems to fall in the ideology spectrum. As Special Agent in Charge, Denver she would have full knowledge of procedures, Table of Equipment, Communications protocols, passwords of the day, scheduling and deployment.
As local SS-SAIC she and her staff have the responsibilty for categorizing local threats and doing follow up investigation in locating them in the area, pulling highest potential threats into custody for questioning.
So she has the potential still, even though reassigned to pass such information to like minded indivuals or groups willing to act. Perhaps even more so than before, as she now feels persecuted for her beliefs. Wonder how many laptops and or phones she’s lost or misplaced for extended periods. Still dangerous.
Anyone else in a normal job would get fired,I believe.
What does the Obama supporter look like? If he appears to be a 95%er you could have a problem. As long as you treat all potential tenants the same, it's hard to prove discrimination. If you want to eliminate the irresponsible, require a minimum credit score of, say, 750. To eliminate potential trouble require an authorization to do a law enforcement background check. Ask all applicants if they have ever filed charges in or had charges filed against them in landlord-tenant litigation.
In your for rent ad,
put "No liberals need apply" (just kidding) describe the dwelling and the location generally, but give out no address; require that they submit an application first and only show to qualified people. You do not want to meet them until you have qualified them, so they can't claim racism because you knew what their race was.
To see how they keep their current rental, go pick them up for the showing if that is practical, or at least do a drive-by.
I would not have expected less...
Denver office must be smoking weed.
Probably meth too. Problem with that is that they are all running around with loaded pistols.
Ms. O’Grady couldn’t resist the internal emotional pressure; couldn’t compartmentalize her thinking and her emotions, and ended up emoting instead of thinking.
This fail mode has real ramifications in an entire range of social considerations about the role of women; all the way from thinking about allowing women into combat roles down to everyday considerations about women in positions of corporate or government leadership.
The best research informs us that an elemental difference between women and men is cognitive: that men are able to both live through, and later recall, experiences apart from feeling the emotion of those events, but women — not so much; they feel the emotions in parallel with the events, both at the time and upon later recall. “In the heat of the moment” men readily sideline emotions and think their way through things, whereas women are likely — though not necessarily — to find that their emotions are intruding upon their logic processes in real time introducing greater difficulty into the task of thinking through the situation. Now, on the positive side, those women who demonstrate success at this juncture ought to command great respect from men since the difficulty factor for women is substantively higher. Furthermore, it must be acknowledged that this cognitive difference IS NOT A DISQUALIFIER, but it ought to be something to profile on a case-by-case basis among women seeking to lead or take on high-risk, high-pressure roles.
Still, disqualifier or not, we must ask, “Where and when might this cognitive difference matter?”
One may well do a bit of extrapolation as to how this difference in the ability to compartmentalize emotions and logical thought might evidence itself in high-pressure, high-risk circumstances; say on the front line of a military conflict, in a street riot, or an assassination attempt. More broadly, one might well wonder how this difference might play out in arenas as seemingly benign as a corporate boardroom, a legislative chamber, or even The Oval Office.
I strongly note that this cognitive difference is not necessarily a factor that cripples a woman’s capacity for leadership; Golda Meir, and Britain’s own Lady Margaret Thatcher are two quite notable examples of strong women whose leadership gave evidence of their ability to intentionally sideline emotion in the face of necessarily logical, well-considered decision making. After all, can anyone in command of the faculties of reason credibly feature Lady Thatcher in an emotional melt-down?
By way of contrast I would pose the same question concerning Barbara Boxer. And Nancy Pelosi. Elizabeth Warren. Hillary. Maxine Waters.
So, now to this present case with Ms. O’Grady.
The saving grace must be this: that she has demonstrated NOW — apart from dire circumstance — the crippling degree to which she is personally unable to compartmentalize her thoughts and emotions. Certainly we would NOT have preferred that Ms. O’Grady’s personal inability to box out her emotions remain hidden until a fateful moment of decision.
Let us be thankful that we found out apart from any need.
“She wasnt willing to do her job. Shes a danger to anyone she should be protecting. In sane times, this would have been an immediate firing.”
Exactly. The Secret Service should not be political. They must guard the president with their lives, if need be, no matter what political party they belong to.
Really don’t understand the hatred for Trump.
She’s clearly demonstrated that she does not have what it takes (professionalism and good judgment to name a couple) to continue as a member of the Homeland Security team. She totally blew it, IMO. She needs to be canned and sent back to whatever hole she crawled out of.
Well, who would take a bullet from Trump? If the POTUS shoots at me, I’d duck, too. For Trump, well, that’s different.
To them he is both Bushes, Nixon and Reagan all rolled into one. He really is in their heads.
Surely the Secret Service has a ‘conduct unbecoming’ clause as justification for termination!
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.