Secret Service agent breaks law, says she will not take bullet for Trump

No sooner than the howls of liberal excoriation died down over my proposal that Donald Trump ought to bring in a private security detail to be integrated into the existing secret service, than Matt Drudge posted a link to a piece from the Washington Examiner which confirmed many peoples’ deepest and darkest fears.

A woman called Kerry O’Grady who is in charge of the US Secret Service’s operations in Denver, Colorado, made a now deleted Facebook post in which she said the following:

As a public servant for nearly 23 years, I struggle not to violate the Hatch Act. So I keep quiet and skirt the median.   To do otherwise can be a criminal offense for those in my position. Despite the fact that I am expected to take a bullet for both sides.

But this world has changed and I have changed. And I would take jail time over a bullet or an endorsement for what I believe to be disaster to this country and the strong and amazing women and minorities who reside here. Hatch Act be damned. I am with Her”.

Forgetting the fact that her post implies dereliction of duty, wanton negligence and conceivably even treason, it also – as she admitted – violates the Hatch Act.

The Hatch Act prohibits Secret Service employees from posting statements of political advocacy or rebuke on-line or in any public forum.

I am in no sense a vindictive man but if this person fails to face anything less than serious punishment then it would send out entirely the wrong message.

In light of the fact that so many liberal agitators have openly advocated violence against President Trump – and have actually engaged in violent acts against Trump supporters – the remarks take on a special seriousness.

According to the Examiner, O’Grady blamed her statement on an ‘emotional reaction’ to various statements made by President Trump.

I can think of no worse line of work for someone who has an emotional outburst than policing and security.

I wouldn’t want a white police officer to gun down a black man because he remembered an emotional experience when he once was bullied by a black child in school. I wouldn’t want a pilot flying an aircraft to crash the plane because his wife was in a foul mood before take-off. I wouldn’t want a surgeon to kill a patient because the matron forgot to put sugar in his tea.  I certainly do not want a bodyguard tasked with protecting the President of the United States from doing her duty because of an ’emotional reaction’ to something he said.

These remarks cannot be taken lightly, and I expect a proportionate sentence.