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 Service’s Denver district office. It’s 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 couldn’t keep her mouth shut about the 45th president’s 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. O’Grady 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 O’Grady won’t be coming back to her former position, but sources told her that they’re 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.
O’Grady did deleted the controversial posts, but we all know that the Internet is forever. She said that her opinions of the president wouldn’t have impacted her ability to execute her duties. Apparently, not everyone felt that way.
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 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.”
______________________________________________
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!
You are right...And living rent-free! LOL!
The Ruling Class.
Trust me, you wouldn't. It's actually pretty common in larger companies where your immediate supervisor can't just fire you. They bring you into the office, say you have X complaint against you then tell you that you are being sent home, with pay, pending an investigation by upper management. Normally what it is is offering you some glimmer of hope so you don't go postal on them and leave quietly, then they can send you a letter saying you are terminated. I had it happen to me once (I wasn't fired just got a letter of warning) and the wait is terrible.
Of course the difference between government and the private sector is that you get a decision within days.
O’Grady joins the ranks of such smug luminaries as Megyn Kelly, whose attempts to pu$$y whip President Trump failed miserably.
Post her to Fairbanks Alaska, where she can make coffee for her superiors while pursuing Inuit counterfeiters.
We were brand new landlords and learned alot of things the hard way. Two ways a landlord can get into trouble, feeling sorry and being in a hurry to rent, that was us.
It was so stupid not to keep the unit vacant, for however long it takes to find a good tenant. If a new landlord knows nothing else, that above advice is the ticket to success and little property damage and heart ache.
The first thing that struck me is that this idiot writer keeps saying that the agent said that she would not take a bullet FROM Trump! Hell’s bells, I don’t want the Donald to shoot me either! That is pathetic writing and I am disappointed that no one pointed it out in the first ten posts.
That was the first thing I saw and I was amazed that I got to post no. 28 before someone else commented on it. Every day the number of absurd errors and omissions in writing seems to double and less and less attention is paid to it. At this rate there won’t be any point in trying to read anything in another year or so. The author should be sent back to first grade.
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.