On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 20:08:55 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> . . .
>>
>>> He has plot armor. Which is the absolute best kind of armor to have.
>>
>> shawn, that's brilliant.
>>
>
>Yes

If only we could all have that, but in my case I'm pretty sure I would
end up more like the ALAN WAKE games where the writer seems to be
tripping and putting me into more of the horror genre than any more
mundane plot.

In article <AyRgM.23038$Yr24.15715@fx16.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 6/9/2023 7:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <ZQNgM.17351$fZx2.3045@fx14.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/9/2023 6:17 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> >>>> Adam H. Kerman
> >>>>> Ed Stasiak
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel
> >>>>> an employee to risk their life.
> >>>>
> >>>> As always, your analogy sucks. Firefighters have gear they must wear
> >>>> that protects them from inhaling poisonous gases and getting burned.
> >>>
> >>> Nonsense, it's perfectly apt and protective gear has nothing to do with
> >>> it, which didn't save all those firemen who went rushing into the
> >>> World Trade Center on 9/11?
> >>>
> >>> Would you prosecute and imprison (for 97 years no less!) one of them,
> >>> had they said "fuck that, I ain't going in!"?
> >>>
> >>>> This guy, for whatever reason, wasn't wearing his gear. He had
> >>>> active-shooter training, so they were anticipating some sort of
> >>>> emergency like this. Why wasn't he wearing a bullet-proof vest?
> >>>
> >>> It wouldn't have mattered if this cop had a vest or not, how can
> >>> you imprison _an employee_ for not risking DEATH if he decides
> >>> the situation is too dangerous?
> >>>
> >>> Even military personnel can refuse a suicidal order.
> >>
> >> The question is: what job have you accepted? Afaik, e.g., a Secret
> >> Service agent is expected to take a bullet for the President...
> >
> > But if he/she refuses, they can be fired, but not criminally charged.
>
> I'd think he could be criminally charged if it were somehow proven he
> took a job with that requirement while he'd no intention of meeting it.

What if an agent took the job with the intent of meeting it, then later
down the road changed her mind because of her politics and the occupant
of the office?

On Fri, 09 Jun 2023 20:31:45 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <AyRgM.23038$Yr24.15715@fx16.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/9/2023 7:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> > In article <ZQNgM.17351$fZx2.3045@fx14.iad>,
>> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 6/9/2023 6:17 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> >>>> Adam H. Kerman
>> >>>>> Ed Stasiak
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel
>> >>>>> an employee to risk their life.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> As always, your analogy sucks. Firefighters have gear they must wear
>> >>>> that protects them from inhaling poisonous gases and getting burned.
>> >>>
>> >>> Nonsense, it's perfectly apt and protective gear has nothing to do with
>> >>> it, which didn't save all those firemen who went rushing into the
>> >>> World Trade Center on 9/11?
>> >>>
>> >>> Would you prosecute and imprison (for 97 years no less!) one of them,
>> >>> had they said "fuck that, I ain't going in!"?
>> >>>
>> >>>> This guy, for whatever reason, wasn't wearing his gear. He had
>> >>>> active-shooter training, so they were anticipating some sort of
>> >>>> emergency like this. Why wasn't he wearing a bullet-proof vest?
>> >>>
>> >>> It wouldn't have mattered if this cop had a vest or not, how can
>> >>> you imprison _an employee_ for not risking DEATH if he decides
>> >>> the situation is too dangerous?
>> >>>
>> >>> Even military personnel can refuse a suicidal order.
>> >>
>> >> The question is: what job have you accepted? Afaik, e.g., a Secret
>> >> Service agent is expected to take a bullet for the President...
>> >
>> > But if he/she refuses, they can be fired, but not criminally charged.
>>
>> I'd think he could be criminally charged if it were somehow proven he
>> took a job with that requirement while he'd no intention of meeting it.
>
>What if an agent took the job with the intent of meeting it, then later
>down the road changed her mind because of her politics and the occupant
>of the office?

How would anyone know if the agent doesn't admit to planning on not
meeting the requirement. After all often just hesitating a moment
could be enough to let someone shoot the current occupant of the
office. It's got to be difficult making sure the people on the
protective detail are truly going to be on the ball if they need to
respond to an active threat. Of course normally the person sitting in
the Oval Office is more or less boring. So people may disagree with
their positions on issues but that's far from deciding they aren't
going to be willing to do their job.

On 6/9/2023 11:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <AyRgM.23038$Yr24.15715@fx16.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/9/2023 7:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <ZQNgM.17351$fZx2.3045@fx14.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/9/2023 6:17 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman
>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel
>>>>>>> an employee to risk their life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As always, your analogy sucks. Firefighters have gear they must wear
>>>>>> that protects them from inhaling poisonous gases and getting burned.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense, it's perfectly apt and protective gear has nothing to do with
>>>>> it, which didn't save all those firemen who went rushing into the
>>>>> World Trade Center on 9/11?
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you prosecute and imprison (for 97 years no less!) one of them,
>>>>> had they said "fuck that, I ain't going in!"?
>>>>>
>>>>>> This guy, for whatever reason, wasn't wearing his gear. He had
>>>>>> active-shooter training, so they were anticipating some sort of
>>>>>> emergency like this. Why wasn't he wearing a bullet-proof vest?
>>>>>
>>>>> It wouldn't have mattered if this cop had a vest or not, how can
>>>>> you imprison _an employee_ for not risking DEATH if he decides
>>>>> the situation is too dangerous?
>>>>>
>>>>> Even military personnel can refuse a suicidal order.
>>>>
>>>> The question is: what job have you accepted? Afaik, e.g., a Secret
>>>> Service agent is expected to take a bullet for the President...
>>>
>>> But if he/she refuses, they can be fired, but not criminally charged.
>>
>> I'd think he could be criminally charged if it were somehow proven he
>> took a job with that requirement while he'd no intention of meeting it.
>
> What if an agent took the job with the intent of meeting it, then later
> down the road changed her mind because of her politics and the occupant
> of the office?

Just as guilty, if she doesn't resign upon changing her mind.

Note that I'm saying only that she commits the crime, not that she's
likely ever to be successfully prosecuted for it.

In article <eiSgM.23039$Yr24.10714@fx16.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 6/9/2023 11:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <AyRgM.23038$Yr24.15715@fx16.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/9/2023 7:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <ZQNgM.17351$fZx2.3045@fx14.iad>,
> >>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 6/9/2023 6:17 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> >>>>>> Adam H. Kerman
> >>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel
> >>>>>>> an employee to risk their life.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As always, your analogy sucks. Firefighters have gear they must wear
> >>>>>> that protects them from inhaling poisonous gases and getting burned.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nonsense, it's perfectly apt and protective gear has nothing to do with
> >>>>> it, which didn't save all those firemen who went rushing into the
> >>>>> World Trade Center on 9/11?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Would you prosecute and imprison (for 97 years no less!) one of them,
> >>>>> had they said "fuck that, I ain't going in!"?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> This guy, for whatever reason, wasn't wearing his gear. He had
> >>>>>> active-shooter training, so they were anticipating some sort of
> >>>>>> emergency like this. Why wasn't he wearing a bullet-proof vest?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It wouldn't have mattered if this cop had a vest or not, how can
> >>>>> you imprison _an employee_ for not risking DEATH if he decides
> >>>>> the situation is too dangerous?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Even military personnel can refuse a suicidal order.
> >>>>
> >>>> The question is: what job have you accepted? Afaik, e.g., a Secret
> >>>> Service agent is expected to take a bullet for the President...
> >>>
> >>> But if he/she refuses, they can be fired, but not criminally charged.
> >>
> >> I'd think he could be criminally charged if it were somehow proven he
> >> took a job with that requirement while he'd no intention of meeting it.
> >
> > What if an agent took the job with the intent of meeting it, then later
> > down the road changed her mind because of her politics and the occupant
> > of the office?
>
> Just as guilty, if she doesn't resign upon changing her mind.
>
> Note that I'm saying only that she commits the crime, not that she's
> likely ever to be successfully prosecuted for it.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-agent-who-suggested-she-w
ont-take-bullet-for-trump-on-paid-leave-report-says.amp

She was busted down from a GS-15 SAIC to a GS-13 SA (regular agent) and
then allowed to use paid and unpaid leave for three years until she hit
the 25-year retirement milestone, and allowed to retire with her pension
intact.

What should have happened is she should have been summarily fired.

(Full disclosure: I worked with O'Grady several times over the years and
I was not impressed.)

On Fri, 09 Jun 2023 21:35:39 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <eiSgM.23039$Yr24.10714@fx16.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/9/2023 11:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> > In article <AyRgM.23038$Yr24.15715@fx16.iad>,
>> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 6/9/2023 7:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> >>> In article <ZQNgM.17351$fZx2.3045@fx14.iad>,
>> >>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 6/9/2023 6:17 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> >>>>>> Adam H. Kerman
>> >>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel
>> >>>>>>> an employee to risk their life.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> As always, your analogy sucks. Firefighters have gear they must wear
>> >>>>>> that protects them from inhaling poisonous gases and getting burned.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Nonsense, it's perfectly apt and protective gear has nothing to do with
>> >>>>> it, which didn't save all those firemen who went rushing into the
>> >>>>> World Trade Center on 9/11?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Would you prosecute and imprison (for 97 years no less!) one of them,
>> >>>>> had they said "fuck that, I ain't going in!"?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> This guy, for whatever reason, wasn't wearing his gear. He had
>> >>>>>> active-shooter training, so they were anticipating some sort of
>> >>>>>> emergency like this. Why wasn't he wearing a bullet-proof vest?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> It wouldn't have mattered if this cop had a vest or not, how can
>> >>>>> you imprison _an employee_ for not risking DEATH if he decides
>> >>>>> the situation is too dangerous?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Even military personnel can refuse a suicidal order.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The question is: what job have you accepted? Afaik, e.g., a Secret
>> >>>> Service agent is expected to take a bullet for the President...
>> >>>
>> >>> But if he/she refuses, they can be fired, but not criminally charged.
>> >>
>> >> I'd think he could be criminally charged if it were somehow proven he
>> >> took a job with that requirement while he'd no intention of meeting it.
>> >
>> > What if an agent took the job with the intent of meeting it, then later
>> > down the road changed her mind because of her politics and the occupant
>> > of the office?
>>
>> Just as guilty, if she doesn't resign upon changing her mind.
>>
>> Note that I'm saying only that she commits the crime, not that she's
>> likely ever to be successfully prosecuted for it.
>
>https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-agent-who-suggested-she-w
>ont-take-bullet-for-trump-on-paid-leave-report-says.amp
>
>She was busted down from a GS-15 SAIC to a GS-13 SA (regular agent) and
>then allowed to use paid and unpaid leave for three years until she hit
>the 25-year retirement milestone, and allowed to retire with her pension
>intact.

Damn, that's a sweet deal. Sure it would have been nice to retire at
the higher rate but to be able to stay on until she could retire even
though she wasn't willing to do her job is something I wouldn't expect
from most jobs. Especially a job with the sort of requirements I would
expect to even get into and the number of people lined up to fill any
empty spots.

>What should have happened is she should have been summarily fired.
>
>(Full disclosure: I worked with O'Grady several times over the years and
>I was not impressed.)

I guess they were going with the 'we protect our own' philosophy.

Ah, so it wasn't what you said. She said she would protect the
President, even if it was Trump. What the article says she said is
that she had decided to be up front about her support for Hillary
Clinton. For that haven't read it the relevant portion is:

===O'Grady reportedly posted on Facebook in October, "As a public
servant for nearly 23 years, I struggle not to violate the Hatch Act,"
O'Grady wrote. "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."
===
===The Hatch Act, a 1939 law, bars certain federal employees from
engaging in political activity to promote fairness and nonpartisanship
within the workplace. The Secret Service is among the agencies
affected by the act.

-------------
So Fox was reading in to her statement about taking jail time over a
bullet to mean she wouldn't protect the President when what she is
really saying is she would rather go to jail for speaking out publicly
about who she supported for President than to do her job and take a
bullet for the President. All because she thought Hillary was a much
better choice and wanted to say so publicly but was legally prevented
from doing so.

She even took the post down after a few days so it's not like she's
out there saying I don't care if they kill Trump. It's not like Secret
Service employees don't have favorites among the Presidential
candidates. Hell we heard often enough of people on the SS that
supported Trump and people that didn't during his time in office, it's
just that I don't recall any one going public about it, at least not
willingly.

In article <lm088ilmh0e0fv1qunf0ba3srmrg783jmt@4ax.com>,
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Jun 2023 21:35:39 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <eiSgM.23039$Yr24.10714@fx16.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/9/2023 11:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >> > In article <AyRgM.23038$Yr24.15715@fx16.iad>,
> >> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 6/9/2023 7:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >> >>> In article <ZQNgM.17351$fZx2.3045@fx14.iad>,
> >> >>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> On 6/9/2023 6:17 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

> >> >>>>> Even military personnel can refuse a suicidal order.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> The question is: what job have you accepted? Afaik, e.g., a Secret
> >> >>>> Service agent is expected to take a bullet for the President...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> But if he/she refuses, they can be fired, but not criminally charged.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'd think he could be criminally charged if it were somehow proven he
> >> >> took a job with that requirement while he'd no intention of meeting it.
> >> >
> >> > What if an agent took the job with the intent of meeting it, then later
> >> > down the road changed her mind because of her politics and the occupant
> >> > of the office?
> >>
> >> Just as guilty, if she doesn't resign upon changing her mind.
> >>
> >> Note that I'm saying only that she commits the crime, not that she's
> >> likely ever to be successfully prosecuted for it.
> >
> >https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-agent-who-suggested-she-w
> >ont-take-bullet-for-trump-on-paid-leave-report-says.amp
> >
> >She was busted down from a GS-15 SAIC to a GS-13 SA (regular agent) and
> >then allowed to use paid and unpaid leave for three years until she hit
> >the 25-year retirement milestone, and allowed to retire with her pension
> >intact.
>
> Damn, that's a sweet deal. Sure it would have been nice to retire at
> the higher rate

She did. Your pension is based on the top three years of your salary,
not the last three years. So even getting busted down didn't affect her
pension amount.

> >What should have happened is she should have been summarily fired.
> >
> >(Full disclosure: I worked with O'Grady several times over the years and
> >I was not impressed.)
>
> I guess they were going with the 'we protect our own' philosophy.
>
> Ah, so it wasn't what you said. She said she would protect the
> President, even if it was Trump. What the article says she said is
> that she had decided to be up front about her support for Hillary
> Clinton. For that haven't read it the relevant portion is:
>
> ===O'Grady reportedly posted on Facebook in October, "As a public
> servant for nearly 23 years, I struggle not to violate the Hatch Act,"
> O'Grady wrote. "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."
> ===
> ===The Hatch Act, a 1939 law, bars certain federal employees from
> engaging in political activity to promote fairness and nonpartisanship
> within the workplace. The Secret Service is among the agencies
> affected by the act.
>
> -------------
> So Fox was reading in to her statement about taking jail time over a
> bullet to mean she wouldn't protect the President when what she is
> really saying is she would rather go to jail for speaking out publicly
> about who she supported for President than to do her job and take a
> bullet for the President.

No, that isn't what she said. She said she wouldn't physically defend or
endorse Trump and that she was endorsing Hillary regardless of what the
Hatch Act required.

> She even took the post down after a few days so it's not like she's
> out there saying I don't care if they kill Trump.

She was the Special Agent in Charge of Denver, for gawd's sake. She
should have kept her goddam mouth shut and if she couldn't, she should
have quit, then talked all she liked.

On Fri, 09 Jun 2023 23:09:19 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <lm088ilmh0e0fv1qunf0ba3srmrg783jmt@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 09 Jun 2023 21:35:39 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <eiSgM.23039$Yr24.10714@fx16.iad>,
>> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 6/9/2023 11:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> >> > In article <AyRgM.23038$Yr24.15715@fx16.iad>,
>> >> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 6/9/2023 7:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> >> >>> In article <ZQNgM.17351$fZx2.3045@fx14.iad>,
>> >> >>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> On 6/9/2023 6:17 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>
>> >> >>>>> Even military personnel can refuse a suicidal order.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> The question is: what job have you accepted? Afaik, e.g., a Secret
>> >> >>>> Service agent is expected to take a bullet for the President...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> But if he/she refuses, they can be fired, but not criminally charged.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'd think he could be criminally charged if it were somehow proven he
>> >> >> took a job with that requirement while he'd no intention of meeting it.
>> >> >
>> >> > What if an agent took the job with the intent of meeting it, then later
>> >> > down the road changed her mind because of her politics and the occupant
>> >> > of the office?
>> >>
>> >> Just as guilty, if she doesn't resign upon changing her mind.
>> >>
>> >> Note that I'm saying only that she commits the crime, not that she's
>> >> likely ever to be successfully prosecuted for it.
>> >
>> >https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-agent-who-suggested-she-w
>> >ont-take-bullet-for-trump-on-paid-leave-report-says.amp
>> >
>> >She was busted down from a GS-15 SAIC to a GS-13 SA (regular agent) and
>> >then allowed to use paid and unpaid leave for three years until she hit
>> >the 25-year retirement milestone, and allowed to retire with her pension
>> >intact.
>>
>> Damn, that's a sweet deal. Sure it would have been nice to retire at
>> the higher rate
>
>She did. Your pension is based on the top three years of your salary,
>not the last three years. So even getting busted down didn't affect her
>pension amount.

Hmm, which makes it even more surprising they let her do that. I
wonder if they were afraid of some sort of public blowback if they got
rid of her.

>> >What should have happened is she should have been summarily fired.
>> >
>> >(Full disclosure: I worked with O'Grady several times over the years and
>> >I was not impressed.)
>>
>> I guess they were going with the 'we protect our own' philosophy.
>>
>> Ah, so it wasn't what you said. She said she would protect the
>> President, even if it was Trump. What the article says she said is
>> that she had decided to be up front about her support for Hillary
>> Clinton. For that haven't read it the relevant portion is:
>>
>> ===O'Grady reportedly posted on Facebook in October, "As a public
>> servant for nearly 23 years, I struggle not to violate the Hatch Act,"
>> O'Grady wrote. "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."
>> ===
>> ===The Hatch Act, a 1939 law, bars certain federal employees from
>> engaging in political activity to promote fairness and nonpartisanship
>> within the workplace. The Secret Service is among the agencies
>> affected by the act.
>>
>> -------------
>> So Fox was reading in to her statement about taking jail time over a
>> bullet to mean she wouldn't protect the President when what she is
>> really saying is she would rather go to jail for speaking out publicly
>> about who she supported for President than to do her job and take a
>> bullet for the President.
>
>No, that isn't what she said. She said she wouldn't physically defend or
>endorse Trump and that she was endorsing Hillary regardless of what the
>Hatch Act required.

That's not my reading. She is saying she would rather go to jail than
to put her life on the line for President Trump. I don't see that as
saying she intended to stay in her role on the President's detail and
NOT defend his life.

>> She even took the post down after a few days so it's not like she's
>> out there saying I don't care if they kill Trump.
>
>She was the Special Agent in Charge of Denver, for gawd's sake. She
>should have kept her goddam mouth shut and if she couldn't, she should
>have quit, then talked all she liked.

I agree she should have stayed quiet. She's not the first agent to
have an issue with person in the Oval Office and I'm sure she won't be
the last. Just keep the talk to friends or office workers or no one at
all but for heavens sake when you take it to the Facebook or any
social media where people know who you are and what you do there's no
reason to go public. Hell, even most companies have rules against
employees talking to the press, and yes, I consider posting on
Facebook similar to talking to the press because anyone can see it and
you have no idea how it will be taken.

Or if she truly had to post in public and didn't want to give up her
job then post anonymously. It's not like it's that hard to create a
fake account. It would be the wrong thing to do but I'm sure she
wouldn't be the first and so long as no one connects the fake account
with her there wouldn't be any fallout.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Jun 2023 21:35:39 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>On 6/9/2023 11:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

>>>>>. . .

>>>>What if an agent took the job with the intent of meeting it, then later
>>>>down the road changed her mind because of her politics and the occupant
>>>>of the office?

>>>Just as guilty, if she doesn't resign upon changing her mind.

>>>Note that I'm saying only that she commits the crime, not that she's
>>>likely ever to be successfully prosecuted for it.

>>https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-agent-who-suggested-she-wont-take-bullet-for-trump-on-paid-leave-report-says.amp

>>She was busted down from a GS-15 SAIC to a GS-13 SA (regular agent) and
>>then allowed to use paid and unpaid leave for three years until she hit
>>the 25-year retirement milestone, and allowed to retire with her pension
>>intact.

>Damn, that's a sweet deal. Sure it would have been nice to retire at
>the higher rate but to be able to stay on until she could retire even
>though she wasn't willing to do her job is something I wouldn't expect
>from most jobs. Especially a job with the sort of requirements I would
>expect to even get into and the number of people lined up to fill any
>empty spots.

>>What should have happened is she should have been summarily fired.

>>(Full disclosure: I worked with O'Grady several times over the years and
>>I was not impressed.)

>I guess they were going with the 'we protect our own' philosophy.

>Ah, so it wasn't what you said. She said she would protect the
>President, even if it was Trump.

And I would take jail time over a bullet

would be the key phrase that pissed everyone off.

>What the article says she said is that she had decided to be up front
>about her support for Hillary Clinton. For that haven't read it the
>relevant portion is:

>===O'Grady reportedly posted on Facebook in October, "As a public
>servant for nearly 23 years, I struggle not to violate the Hatch Act,"
>O'Grady wrote. "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."
>===
>===The Hatch Act, a 1939 law, bars certain federal employees from
>engaging in political activity to promote fairness and nonpartisanship
>within the workplace. The Secret Service is among the agencies
>affected by the act.

This is completely wrong. The Hatch Act is related to the civil service
code. Everyone in the civil service is Hatched. Everyone. It bars
specific kinds of political activity, although it's not as restrictive
as it once was. Before the civil service, people blatantly paid
"campaign contributions" for federal jobs and were expected to
"volunteer" for political campaigns.

I don't know how the Hatch Act applies to the post office these days,
which isn't civil service. It has its own laws.

The Hatch Act does not apply to patronage appointees, which are
typically the very top-level people in the department appointed by the
president and are not civil service.

It applies to some boards and commissions, but not all. I'm not sure
about federal contractors.

>-------------
>So Fox was reading in to her statement about taking jail time over a
>bullet to mean she wouldn't protect the President when what she is
>really saying is she would rather go to jail for speaking out publicly
>about who she supported for President than to do her job and take a
>bullet for the President. All because she thought Hillary was a much
>better choice and wanted to say so publicly but was legally prevented
>from doing so.

It doesn't matter. What she wrote was unprofessional.

Anyway, I don't agree with you. She can criticize the Hatch Act, but she
conflated her criticism with how she would conduct herself professionally
on the job. I don't recall that the Hatch Act has any violations that
are criminal. Neither jail time nor taking a bullet are relevant to the
provisions of the Hatch Act that restrict her political activities.

The Hatch Act is absolutely a restriction on speech, but one's employer
is free to do that in specific circumstances without violating the First
Amendment, even if the employer is the government.

>She even took the post down after a few days so it's not like she's
>out there saying I don't care if they kill Trump. It's not like Secret
>Service employees don't have favorites among the Presidential
>candidates. Hell we heard often enough of people on the SS that
>supported Trump and people that didn't during his time in office, it's
>just that I don't recall any one going public about it, at least not
>willingly.

Nothing that you wrote here has anything to do with the Hatch Act. She
wrote that, but for the Hatch Act, she'd have participated in political
activities banned by the Hatch Act. An expression of support, in and of
itself, isn't a banned political activity. She knew this going in and
should have chosen another line of work.

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 14:17:57 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 09 Jun 2023 21:35:39 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>On 6/9/2023 11:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>. . .
>
>>>>>What if an agent took the job with the intent of meeting it, then later
>>>>>down the road changed her mind because of her politics and the occupant
>>>>>of the office?
>
>>>>Just as guilty, if she doesn't resign upon changing her mind.
>
>>>>Note that I'm saying only that she commits the crime, not that she's
>>>>likely ever to be successfully prosecuted for it.
>
>>>https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-agent-who-suggested-she-wont-take-bullet-for-trump-on-paid-leave-report-says.amp
>
>>>She was busted down from a GS-15 SAIC to a GS-13 SA (regular agent) and
>>>then allowed to use paid and unpaid leave for three years until she hit
>>>the 25-year retirement milestone, and allowed to retire with her pension
>>>intact.
>
>>Damn, that's a sweet deal. Sure it would have been nice to retire at
>>the higher rate but to be able to stay on until she could retire even
>>though she wasn't willing to do her job is something I wouldn't expect
>>from most jobs. Especially a job with the sort of requirements I would
>>expect to even get into and the number of people lined up to fill any
>>empty spots.
>
>>>What should have happened is she should have been summarily fired.
>
>>>(Full disclosure: I worked with O'Grady several times over the years and
>>>I was not impressed.)
>
>>I guess they were going with the 'we protect our own' philosophy.
>
>>Ah, so it wasn't what you said. She said she would protect the
>>President, even if it was Trump.
>
> And I would take jail time over a bullet
>
>would be the key phrase that pissed everyone off.

Sure, I get that. Thought I wouldn't agree with what Fox thought that
meant which was that she wouldn't do her job. I read it as saying that
given the choice between speaking up about her support for Hillary and
possibly going to jail or continuing to do her job and possibly taking
a bullet for Trump she would rather go to jail. Certainly not what you
want an SAIC saying in public but a far cry from saying she would do
her job but fail to protect the President.

>>What the article says she said is that she had decided to be up front
>>about her support for Hillary Clinton. For that haven't read it the
>>relevant portion is:
>
>>===O'Grady reportedly posted on Facebook in October, "As a public
>>servant for nearly 23 years, I struggle not to violate the Hatch Act,"
>>O'Grady wrote. "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."
>>===
>>===The Hatch Act, a 1939 law, bars certain federal employees from
>>engaging in political activity to promote fairness and nonpartisanship
>>within the workplace. The Secret Service is among the agencies
>>affected by the act.
>
>This is completely wrong. The Hatch Act is related to the civil service
>code. Everyone in the civil service is Hatched. Everyone. It bars
>specific kinds of political activity, although it's not as restrictive
>as it once was. Before the civil service, people blatantly paid
>"campaign contributions" for federal jobs and were expected to
>"volunteer" for political campaigns.
>
>I don't know how the Hatch Act applies to the post office these days,
>which isn't civil service. It has its own laws.
>
>The Hatch Act does not apply to patronage appointees, which are
>typically the very top-level people in the department appointed by the
>president and are not civil service.
>
>It applies to some boards and commissions, but not all. I'm not sure
>about federal contractors.
>
>>-------------
>>So Fox was reading in to her statement about taking jail time over a
>>bullet to mean she wouldn't protect the President when what she is
>>really saying is she would rather go to jail for speaking out publicly
>>about who she supported for President than to do her job and take a
>>bullet for the President. All because she thought Hillary was a much
>>better choice and wanted to say so publicly but was legally prevented
>>from doing so.
>
>It doesn't matter. What she wrote was unprofessional.

Sure. I don't disagree with that. I disagree with how Fox and others
have interpreted her words to mean she was fine with Trump getting
killed on her watch.

>Anyway, I don't agree with you. She can criticize the Hatch Act, but she
>conflated her criticism with how she would conduct herself professionally
>on the job. I don't recall that the Hatch Act has any violations that
>are criminal. Neither jail time nor taking a bullet are relevant to the
>provisions of the Hatch Act that restrict her political activities.
>
>The Hatch Act is absolutely a restriction on speech, but one's employer
>is free to do that in specific circumstances without violating the First
>Amendment, even if the employer is the government.
>
>>She even took the post down after a few days so it's not like she's
>>out there saying I don't care if they kill Trump. It's not like Secret
>>Service employees don't have favorites among the Presidential
>>candidates. Hell we heard often enough of people on the SS that
>>supported Trump and people that didn't during his time in office, it's
>>just that I don't recall any one going public about it, at least not
>>willingly.
>
>Nothing that you wrote here has anything to do with the Hatch Act. She
>wrote that, but for the Hatch Act, she'd have participated in political
>activities banned by the Hatch Act. An expression of support, in and of
>itself, isn't a banned political activity. She knew this going in and
>should have chosen another line of work.

Hey, I'm only basing my comments on what they said. The article says
that she would be breaking the Hatch Act for speaking out about her
support of Hillary. The SAIC said is the one that conflated breaking
the Hatch Act as one part of the equation, doing her job as the other,
and coming down on the side of breaking the Hatch Act (in her words.)
Whether her publicly supporting Hillary Clinton was breaking the Hatch
Act is beyond me as I never felt the need to pay close attention to
the wording.

On 6/10/2023 2:24 AM, shawn wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2023 23:09:19 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <lm088ilmh0e0fv1qunf0ba3srmrg783jmt@4ax.com>,
>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 09 Jun 2023 21:35:39 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <eiSgM.23039$Yr24.10714@fx16.iad>,
>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/9/2023 11:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <AyRgM.23038$Yr24.15715@fx16.iad>,
>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/9/2023 7:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <ZQNgM.17351$fZx2.3045@fx14.iad>,
>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2023 6:17 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even military personnel can refuse a suicidal order.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The question is: what job have you accepted? Afaik, e.g., a Secret
>>>>>>>>> Service agent is expected to take a bullet for the President...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But if he/she refuses, they can be fired, but not criminally charged.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd think he could be criminally charged if it were somehow proven he
>>>>>>> took a job with that requirement while he'd no intention of meeting it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What if an agent took the job with the intent of meeting it, then later
>>>>>> down the road changed her mind because of her politics and the occupant
>>>>>> of the office?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just as guilty, if she doesn't resign upon changing her mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that I'm saying only that she commits the crime, not that she's
>>>>> likely ever to be successfully prosecuted for it.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-agent-who-suggested-she-w
>>>> ont-take-bullet-for-trump-on-paid-leave-report-says.amp
>>>>
>>>> She was busted down from a GS-15 SAIC to a GS-13 SA (regular agent) and
>>>> then allowed to use paid and unpaid leave for three years until she hit
>>>> the 25-year retirement milestone, and allowed to retire with her pension
>>>> intact.
>>>
>>> Damn, that's a sweet deal. Sure it would have been nice to retire at
>>> the higher rate
>>
>> She did. Your pension is based on the top three years of your salary,
>> not the last three years. So even getting busted down didn't affect her
>> pension amount.
>
> Hmm, which makes it even more surprising they let her do that. I
> wonder if they were afraid of some sort of public blowback if they got
> rid of her.
>
>>>> What should have happened is she should have been summarily fired.
>>>>
>>>> (Full disclosure: I worked with O'Grady several times over the years and
>>>> I was not impressed.)
>>>
>>> I guess they were going with the 'we protect our own' philosophy.
>>>
>>> Ah, so it wasn't what you said. She said she would protect the
>>> President, even if it was Trump. What the article says she said is
>>> that she had decided to be up front about her support for Hillary
>>> Clinton. For that haven't read it the relevant portion is:
>>>
>>> ===O'Grady reportedly posted on Facebook in October, "As a public
>>> servant for nearly 23 years, I struggle not to violate the Hatch Act,"
>>> O'Grady wrote. "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."
>>> ===
>>> ===The Hatch Act, a 1939 law, bars certain federal employees from
>>> engaging in political activity to promote fairness and nonpartisanship
>>> within the workplace. The Secret Service is among the agencies
>>> affected by the act.
>>>
>>> -------------
>>> So Fox was reading in to her statement about taking jail time over a
>>> bullet to mean she wouldn't protect the President when what she is
>>> really saying is she would rather go to jail for speaking out publicly
>>> about who she supported for President than to do her job and take a
>>> bullet for the President.
>>
>> No, that isn't what she said. She said she wouldn't physically defend or
>> endorse Trump and that she was endorsing Hillary regardless of what the
>> Hatch Act required.
>
> That's not my reading. She is saying she would rather go to jail than
> to put her life on the line for President Trump. I don't see that as
> saying she intended to stay in her role on the President's detail and
> NOT defend his life.
>
>>> She even took the post down after a few days so it's not like she's
>>> out there saying I don't care if they kill Trump.
>>
>> She was the Special Agent in Charge of Denver, for gawd's sake. She
>> should have kept her goddam mouth shut and if she couldn't, she should
>> have quit, then talked all she liked.
>
> I agree she should have stayed quiet. She's not the first agent to
> have an issue with person in the Oval Office and I'm sure she won't be
> the last. Just keep the talk to friends or office workers or no one at
> all but for heavens sake when you take it to the Facebook or any
> social media where people know who you are and what you do there's no
> reason to go public. Hell, even most companies have rules against
> employees talking to the press, and yes, I consider posting on
> Facebook similar to talking to the press because anyone can see it and
> you have no idea how it will be taken.
>
> Or if she truly had to post in public and didn't want to give up her
> job then post anonymously. It's not like it's that hard to create a
> fake account. It would be the wrong thing to do but I'm sure she
> wouldn't be the first and so long as no one connects the fake account
> with her there wouldn't be any fallout.

I think the thorn here is her unnecessary -- and frankly, confusing --
inclusion of the phrase "I would take jail time over a bullet". It's
hard to see that as other than her self-declared disqualification.

As for her principled stance, at some point civilization depends on
prioritizing institutions above "personal convictions". E.g., it's why
I land with both feet on the Capitol rioters...

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>Sat, 10 Jun 2023 14:17:57 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>>>She even took the post down after a few days so it's not like she's
>>>out there saying I don't care if they kill Trump. It's not like Secret
>>>Service employees don't have favorites among the Presidential
>>>candidates. Hell we heard often enough of people on the SS that
>>>supported Trump and people that didn't during his time in office, it's
>>>just that I don't recall any one going public about it, at least not
>>>. . .

>>Nothing that you wrote here has anything to do with the Hatch Act. She
>>wrote that, but for the Hatch Act, she'd have participated in political
>>activities banned by the Hatch Act. An expression of support, in and of
>>itself, isn't a banned political activity. She knew this going in and
>>should have chosen another line of work.

>Hey, I'm only basing my comments on what they said. The article says
>that she would be breaking the Hatch Act for speaking out about her
>support of Hillary.

I'm looking at the Office of Special Counsel Web site, the tiny agency
that enforces the Hatch Act and additional federal statutes. For whatever
reason, the Act wasn't enforced by the Civil Service Board nor its
successor, Office of Personnel Management.

https://osc.gov/

Now, Office of Special Counsel can bring a criminal prosecution but I
don't know if that's a Hatch Act provision or one of the other acts it
enforces.

She didn't say what political activity she was Hatched from
participating in. The Hatch Act specifically prohibits one's boss from
coercise conduct in obtaining political support for a candidate from
underlings or for a civil servant to participate in political activities
intended to allow one to rise through the ranks. It doesn't ban
statements of political support and it no longer bans campaign
contributions or partisan activities when not on the job.

But there is a catch-all provision, Violating Rules That Implement
a Merit System Principle, and I'm sure the Secret Service has myriad
rules prohibiting political conduct that are far more restrictive than
the named proibited activities in the Hatch Act by the nature of the
work in protecting politicians and their families.

>The SAIC said is the one that conflated breaking
>the Hatch Act as one part of the equation, doing her job as the other,
>and coming down on the side of breaking the Hatch Act (in her words.)
>Whether her publicly supporting Hillary Clinton was breaking the Hatch
>Act is beyond me as I never felt the need to pay close attention to
>the wording.

Subject to Secret Service restrictions, she's allowed to publicly
support Hillary. She's allowed to publicly criticize the Hatch Act.
I still have no idea what she wanted to do for which she was Hatched.

In article <u620ml$2ar3n$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> >On Fri, 09 Jun 2023 21:35:39 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >>moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>On 6/9/2023 11:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>. . .
>
> >>>>What if an agent took the job with the intent of meeting it, then later
> >>>>down the road changed her mind because of her politics and the occupant
> >>>>of the office?
>
> >>>Just as guilty, if she doesn't resign upon changing her mind.
>
> >>>Note that I'm saying only that she commits the crime, not that she's
> >>>likely ever to be successfully prosecuted for it.
>
> >>https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-agent-who-suggested-she-wont
> >>-take-bullet-for-trump-on-paid-leave-report-says.amp
>
> >>She was busted down from a GS-15 SAIC to a GS-13 SA (regular agent) and
> >>then allowed to use paid and unpaid leave for three years until she hit
> >>the 25-year retirement milestone, and allowed to retire with her pension
> >>intact.
>
> >Damn, that's a sweet deal. Sure it would have been nice to retire at
> >the higher rate but to be able to stay on until she could retire even
> >though she wasn't willing to do her job is something I wouldn't expect
> >from most jobs. Especially a job with the sort of requirements I would
> >expect to even get into and the number of people lined up to fill any
> >empty spots.
>
> >>What should have happened is she should have been summarily fired.
>
> >>(Full disclosure: I worked with O'Grady several times over the years and
> >>I was not impressed.)
>
> >I guess they were going with the 'we protect our own' philosophy.
>
> >Ah, so it wasn't what you said. She said she would protect the
> >President, even if it was Trump.
>
> And I would take jail time over a bullet
>
> would be the key phrase that pissed everyone off.
>
> >What the article says she said is that she had decided to be up front
> >about her support for Hillary Clinton. For that haven't read it the
> >relevant portion is:
>
> >===O'Grady reportedly posted on Facebook in October, "As a public
> >servant for nearly 23 years, I struggle not to violate the Hatch Act,"
> >O'Grady wrote. "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."
> >===
> >===The Hatch Act, a 1939 law, bars certain federal employees from
> >engaging in political activity to promote fairness and nonpartisanship
> >within the workplace. The Secret Service is among the agencies
> >affected by the act.
>
> This is completely wrong. The Hatch Act is related to the civil service
> code. Everyone in the civil service is Hatched. Everyone.

But some employees have greater restrictions than others. FBI and Secret
Service are higher-restricted employees.

> >-------------
> >So Fox was reading in to her statement about taking jail time over a
> >bullet to mean she wouldn't protect the President when what she is
> >really saying is she would rather go to jail for speaking out publicly
> >about who she supported for President than to do her job and take a
> >bullet for the President. All because she thought Hillary was a much
> >better choice and wanted to say so publicly but was legally prevented
> >from doing so.
>
> It doesn't matter. What she wrote was unprofessional.
>
> Anyway, I don't agree with you. She can criticize the Hatch Act, but she
> conflated her criticism with how she would conduct herself professionally
> on the job. I don't recall that the Hatch Act has any violations that
> are criminal. Neither jail time nor taking a bullet are relevant to the
> provisions of the Hatch Act that restrict her political activities.
>
> The Hatch Act is absolutely a restriction on speech, but one's employer
> is free to do that in specific circumstances without violating the First
> Amendment, even if the employer is the government.
>
> >She even took the post down after a few days so it's not like she's
> >out there saying I don't care if they kill Trump. It's not like Secret
> >Service employees don't have favorites among the Presidential
> >candidates. Hell we heard often enough of people on the SS that
> >supported Trump and people that didn't during his time in office, it's
> >just that I don't recall any one going public about it, at least not
> >willingly.
>
> Nothing that you wrote here has anything to do with the Hatch Act. She
> wrote that, but for the Hatch Act, she'd have participated in political
> activities banned by the Hatch Act. An expression of support, in and of
> itself, isn't a banned political activity. She knew this going in and
> should have chosen another line of work.

It isn't her violation of the Hatch Act that's the real issue here. It's
that she openly expressed her intent to do her job differently based on
who the protectee is. Hillary, yes. Trump, no. That's not how we do it
and she should have been shit-canned the moment her posts became public.

In article <Zq0hM.27965$Yr24.25435@fx16.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 6/10/2023 2:24 AM, shawn wrote:
> > On Fri, 09 Jun 2023 23:09:19 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <lm088ilmh0e0fv1qunf0ba3srmrg783jmt@4ax.com>,
> >> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 09 Jun 2023 21:35:39 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <eiSgM.23039$Yr24.10714@fx16.iad>,
> >>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 6/9/2023 11:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>> In article <AyRgM.23038$Yr24.15715@fx16.iad>,
> >>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 6/9/2023 7:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>>> In article <ZQNgM.17351$fZx2.3045@fx14.iad>,
> >>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2023 6:17 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>> Even military personnel can refuse a suicidal order.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The question is: what job have you accepted? Afaik, e.g., a Secret
> >>>>>>>>> Service agent is expected to take a bullet for the President...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But if he/she refuses, they can be fired, but not criminally
> >>>>>>>> charged.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'd think he could be criminally charged if it were somehow proven he
> >>>>>>> took a job with that requirement while he'd no intention of meeting
> >>>>>>> it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What if an agent took the job with the intent of meeting it, then
> >>>>>> later
> >>>>>> down the road changed her mind because of her politics and the
> >>>>>> occupant
> >>>>>> of the office?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just as guilty, if she doesn't resign upon changing her mind.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note that I'm saying only that she commits the crime, not that she's
> >>>>> likely ever to be successfully prosecuted for it.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-agent-who-suggested-she-w
> >>>> ont-take-bullet-for-trump-on-paid-leave-report-says.amp
> >>>>
> >>>> She was busted down from a GS-15 SAIC to a GS-13 SA (regular agent) and
> >>>> then allowed to use paid and unpaid leave for three years until she hit
> >>>> the 25-year retirement milestone, and allowed to retire with her pension
> >>>> intact.
> >>>
> >>> Damn, that's a sweet deal. Sure it would have been nice to retire at
> >>> the higher rate
> >>
> >> She did. Your pension is based on the top three years of your salary,
> >> not the last three years. So even getting busted down didn't affect her
> >> pension amount.
> >
> > Hmm, which makes it even more surprising they let her do that. I
> > wonder if they were afraid of some sort of public blowback if they got
> > rid of her.
> >
> >>>> What should have happened is she should have been summarily fired.
> >>>>
> >>>> (Full disclosure: I worked with O'Grady several times over the years and
> >>>> I was not impressed.)
> >>>
> >>> I guess they were going with the 'we protect our own' philosophy.
> >>>
> >>> Ah, so it wasn't what you said. She said she would protect the
> >>> President, even if it was Trump. What the article says she said is
> >>> that she had decided to be up front about her support for Hillary
> >>> Clinton. For that haven't read it the relevant portion is:
> >>>
> >>> ===O'Grady reportedly posted on Facebook in October, "As a public
> >>> servant for nearly 23 years, I struggle not to violate the Hatch Act,"
> >>> O'Grady wrote. "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."
> >>> ===
> >>> ===The Hatch Act, a 1939 law, bars certain federal employees from
> >>> engaging in political activity to promote fairness and nonpartisanship
> >>> within the workplace. The Secret Service is among the agencies
> >>> affected by the act.
> >>>
> >>> -------------
> >>> So Fox was reading in to her statement about taking jail time over a
> >>> bullet to mean she wouldn't protect the President when what she is
> >>> really saying is she would rather go to jail for speaking out publicly
> >>> about who she supported for President than to do her job and take a
> >>> bullet for the President.
> >>
> >> No, that isn't what she said. She said she wouldn't physically defend or
> >> endorse Trump and that she was endorsing Hillary regardless of what the
> >> Hatch Act required.
> >
> > That's not my reading. She is saying she would rather go to jail than
> > to put her life on the line for President Trump. I don't see that as
> > saying she intended to stay in her role on the President's detail and
> > NOT defend his life.
> >
> >>> She even took the post down after a few days so it's not like she's
> >>> out there saying I don't care if they kill Trump.
> >>
> >> She was the Special Agent in Charge of Denver, for gawd's sake. She
> >> should have kept her goddam mouth shut and if she couldn't, she should
> >> have quit, then talked all she liked.
> >
> > I agree she should have stayed quiet. She's not the first agent to
> > have an issue with person in the Oval Office and I'm sure she won't be
> > the last. Just keep the talk to friends or office workers or no one at
> > all but for heavens sake when you take it to the Facebook or any
> > social media where people know who you are and what you do there's no
> > reason to go public. Hell, even most companies have rules against
> > employees talking to the press, and yes, I consider posting on
> > Facebook similar to talking to the press because anyone can see it and
> > you have no idea how it will be taken.
> >
> > Or if she truly had to post in public and didn't want to give up her
> > job then post anonymously. It's not like it's that hard to create a
> > fake account. It would be the wrong thing to do but I'm sure she
> > wouldn't be the first and so long as no one connects the fake account
> > with her there wouldn't be any fallout.
>
> I think the thorn here is her unnecessary -- and frankly, confusing --
> inclusion of the phrase "I would take jail time over a bullet". It's
> hard to see that as other than her self-declared disqualification.
>
> As for her principled stance, at some point civilization depends on
> prioritizing institutions above "personal convictions". E.g., it's why
> I land with both feet on the Capitol rioters...

By the time I retired, I rarely even knew who the protectee was anymore.
I'd show up to an assignment and get my post and my instructions and
just do the job. Which politician I was doing it for didn't really even
enter into it. O'Grady was one of those-- thankfully few-- agents that
actively sought out assignments involving politicians on only one side
of the aisle. She was a problem long before she made the public comments
that got her in trouble.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 09 Jun 2023 21:35:39 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>On 6/9/2023 11:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>. . .

>>>>>>What if an agent took the job with the intent of meeting it, then later
>>>>>>down the road changed her mind because of her politics and the occupant
>>>>>>of the office?

>>>>>Just as guilty, if she doesn't resign upon changing her mind.

>>>>>Note that I'm saying only that she commits the crime, not that she's
>>>>>likely ever to be successfully prosecuted for it.

>>>>https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-agent-who-suggested-she-wont-take-bullet-for-trump-on-paid-leave-report-says.amp

>>>>She was busted down from a GS-15 SAIC to a GS-13 SA (regular agent) and
>>>>then allowed to use paid and unpaid leave for three years until she hit
>>>>the 25-year retirement milestone, and allowed to retire with her pension
>>>>intact.

>>>Damn, that's a sweet deal. Sure it would have been nice to retire at
>>>the higher rate but to be able to stay on until she could retire even
>>>though she wasn't willing to do her job is something I wouldn't expect
>>>from most jobs. Especially a job with the sort of requirements I would
>>>expect to even get into and the number of people lined up to fill any
>>>empty spots.

>>>>What should have happened is she should have been summarily fired.

>>>>(Full disclosure: I worked with O'Grady several times over the years and
>>>>I was not impressed.)

>>>I guess they were going with the 'we protect our own' philosophy.

>>>Ah, so it wasn't what you said. She said she would protect the
>>>President, even if it was Trump.

>> And I would take jail time over a bullet

>>would be the key phrase that pissed everyone off.

>>>What the article says she said is that she had decided to be up front
>>>about her support for Hillary Clinton. For that haven't read it the
>>>relevant portion is:

>>>===O'Grady reportedly posted on Facebook in October, "As a public
>>>servant for nearly 23 years, I struggle not to violate the Hatch Act,"
>>>O'Grady wrote. "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."
>>>===
>>>===The Hatch Act, a 1939 law, bars certain federal employees from
>>>engaging in political activity to promote fairness and nonpartisanship
>>>within the workplace. The Secret Service is among the agencies
>>>affected by the act.

>>This is completely wrong. The Hatch Act is related to the civil service
>>code. Everyone in the civil service is Hatched. Everyone.

>But some employees have greater restrictions than others. FBI and Secret
>Service are higher-restricted employees.

In the few minutes I spent reading to refresh my memory, the Hatch Act
is largely about agencies following their own procedures. When they fire
someone or take some sort of adverse action that's against their own
internal procedures, Office of Special Counsel can investigate and make
a finding.

The Act doesn't impose the same rules on the entire civil service; each
agency has its own personnel manual for its own needs.

I'd imagine if you are a foreign service officer in the State Department
or in a trade delegation, what you may say and write in public is even
more highly restricted than what's imposed upon law enforcement. After
all, you are representing America, itself, in state to state affairs.

And if you work for CIA, the only public discussion you may have
concerns your cover job as a travel agent.

>>>-------------
>>>So Fox was reading in to her statement about taking jail time over a
>>>bullet to mean she wouldn't protect the President when what she is
>>>really saying is she would rather go to jail for speaking out publicly
>>>about who she supported for President than to do her job and take a
>>>bullet for the President. All because she thought Hillary was a much
>>>better choice and wanted to say so publicly but was legally prevented
>>>from doing so.

>>It doesn't matter. What she wrote was unprofessional.

>>Anyway, I don't agree with you. She can criticize the Hatch Act, but she
>>conflated her criticism with how she would conduct herself professionally
>>on the job. I don't recall that the Hatch Act has any violations that
>>are criminal. Neither jail time nor taking a bullet are relevant to the
>>provisions of the Hatch Act that restrict her political activities.

>>The Hatch Act is absolutely a restriction on speech, but one's employer
>>is free to do that in specific circumstances without violating the First
>>Amendment, even if the employer is the government.

>>>She even took the post down after a few days so it's not like she's
>>>out there saying I don't care if they kill Trump. It's not like Secret
>>>Service employees don't have favorites among the Presidential
>>>candidates. Hell we heard often enough of people on the SS that
>>>supported Trump and people that didn't during his time in office, it's
>>>just that I don't recall any one going public about it, at least not
>>>willingly.

>>Nothing that you wrote here has anything to do with the Hatch Act. She
>>wrote that, but for the Hatch Act, she'd have participated in political
>>activities banned by the Hatch Act. An expression of support, in and of
>>itself, isn't a banned political activity. She knew this going in and
>>should have chosen another line of work.

>It isn't her violation of the Hatch Act that's the real issue here. It's
>that she openly expressed her intent to do her job differently based on
>who the protectee is. Hillary, yes. Trump, no. That's not how we do it
>and she should have been shit-canned the moment her posts became public.

Yeah, it was clearly her "take a bullet" comment. I can't imagine how
she thought the Hatch Act restricted her political activities. I got the
distinct impression she had no idea what was in the Hatch Act.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>By the time I retired, I rarely even knew who the protectee was anymore.
>I'd show up to an assignment and get my post and my instructions and
>just do the job. Which politician I was doing it for didn't really even
>enter into it. O'Grady was one of those-- thankfully few-- agents that
>actively sought out assignments involving politicians on only one side
>of the aisle. She was a problem long before she made the public comments
>that got her in trouble.

Waitaminit

I think I'm smelling a Hatch Act violation. That's literally political
favoritism, which her bosses were prohibited from doing.

> moviePig
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > It wouldn't have mattered if this cop had a vest or not, how can
> > you imprison _an employee_ for not risking DEATH if he decides
> > the situation is too dangerous?
>
> The question is: what job have you accepted? Afaik,
> e.g., a Secret Service agent is expected to take a bullet
> for the President...

"Expected" does not equal "97 year prison sentence for refusing to die".

On 6/10/2023 4:48 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> moviePig
>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>
>>> It wouldn't have mattered if this cop had a vest or not, how can
>>> you imprison _an employee_ for not risking DEATH if he decides
>>> the situation is too dangerous?
>>
>> The question is: what job have you accepted? Afaik,
>> e.g., a Secret Service agent is expected to take a bullet
>> for the President...
>
> "Expected" does not equal "97 year prison sentence for refusing to die".

If breaking a contract results in some deaths, what's the right penalty?

> Adam H. Kerman
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > It wouldn't have mattered if this cop had a vest or not, how can
> > you imprison _an employee_ for not risking DEATH if he decides
> > the situation is too dangerous?
>
> Soldiers obey orders, no matter how bloody a war record the general has.

"Private Kerman, jump into that volcano."
"What? No way!"
"You are sentenced to 100 years in prison!"

It doesn't work that way. Soldiers are not slaves, those going over
the top in WWI or any war, have an expectation of possibly surviving
(and maybe winning) but we're talking about an EMPLOYEE, who can't
be imprisoned for not risking DEATH.

And if this cop is somehow convicted, it opens the door for other kinda
employees being prosecuted and imprisoned for who the fuck knows
what.

> moviePig
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > "Expected" does not equal "97 year prison sentence for refusing to die".
>
> If breaking a contract results in some deaths, what's the right penalty?

A contract mandating an employee must _die_ is invalid right off the bat.

On 6/10/2023 5:06 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> moviePig
>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>
>>> "Expected" does not equal "97 year prison sentence for refusing to die".
>>
>> If breaking a contract results in some deaths, what's the right penalty?
>
> A contract mandating an employee must _die_ is invalid right off the bat.

How about a contract wherein an employee must risk his life?

Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Adam H. Kerman
>>>Ed Stasiak

>>>It wouldn't have mattered if this cop had a vest or not, how can
>>>you imprison _an employee_ for not risking DEATH if he decides
>>>the situation is too dangerous?

>>Soldiers obey orders, no matter how bloody a war record the general has.

>"Private Kerman, jump into that volcano."
>"What? No way!"
>"You are sentenced to 100 years in prison!"

You're going with the plot of a Tom Hanks-Meg Ryan movie?

>It doesn't work that way. Soldiers are not slaves, those going over
>the top in WWI or any war, have an expectation of possibly surviving
>(and maybe winning)

When a soldier is given a futile order in battle, he cannot refuse it.
There was no battle strategy. It made no sense. He's just being ordered
to his death.

>but we're talking about an EMPLOYEE, who can't be imprisoned for
>not risking DEATH.

The charges are child neglect and abandonment. The police officer was
assigned to the school for the specific purpose of a worst-case scenario
and the welfare of the children was his responsibility in part.

It's not as simple as you are making it out to be.

>And if this cop is somehow convicted, it opens the door for other kinda
>employees being prosecuted and imprisoned for who the fuck knows
>what.

Like a Scout leader who abandons his scout troup on a hike into the
woods because something spooks him? That's another situation in which
child neglect or abandonment charges might be brought. And yeah, the
thing that spooked him might indeed have been something actually deadly
dangerous.

On Jun 10, 2023 at 10:31:02 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 09 Jun 2023 21:35:39 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/9/2023 11:31 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> . . .
>
>>>>>>> What if an agent took the job with the intent of meeting it, then later
>>>>>>> down the road changed her mind because of her politics and the occupant
>>>>>>> of the office?
>
>>>>>> Just as guilty, if she doesn't resign upon changing her mind.
>
>>>>>> Note that I'm saying only that she commits the crime, not that she's
>>>>>> likely ever to be successfully prosecuted for it.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secret-service-agent-who-suggested-she-wont-take-bullet-for-trump-on-paid-leave-report-says.amp
>
>>>>> She was busted down from a GS-15 SAIC to a GS-13 SA (regular agent) and
>>>>> then allowed to use paid and unpaid leave for three years until she hit
>>>>> the 25-year retirement milestone, and allowed to retire with her pension
>>>>> intact.
>
>>>> Damn, that's a sweet deal. Sure it would have been nice to retire at
>>>> the higher rate but to be able to stay on until she could retire even
>>>> though she wasn't willing to do her job is something I wouldn't expect
>>>> from most jobs. Especially a job with the sort of requirements I would
>>>> expect to even get into and the number of people lined up to fill any
>>>> empty spots.
>
>>>>> What should have happened is she should have been summarily fired.
>
>>>>> (Full disclosure: I worked with O'Grady several times over the years and
>>>>> I was not impressed.)
>
>>>> I guess they were going with the 'we protect our own' philosophy.
>
>>>> Ah, so it wasn't what you said. She said she would protect the
>>>> President, even if it was Trump.
>
>>> And I would take jail time over a bullet
>
>>> would be the key phrase that pissed everyone off.
>
>>>> What the article says she said is that she had decided to be up front
>>>> about her support for Hillary Clinton. For that haven't read it the
>>>> relevant portion is:
>
>>>> ===O'Grady reportedly posted on Facebook in October, "As a public
>>>> servant for nearly 23 years, I struggle not to violate the Hatch Act,"
>>>> O'Grady wrote. "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."
>>>> ===
>>>> ===The Hatch Act, a 1939 law, bars certain federal employees from
>>>> engaging in political activity to promote fairness and nonpartisanship
>>>> within the workplace. The Secret Service is among the agencies
>>>> affected by the act.
>
>>> This is completely wrong. The Hatch Act is related to the civil service
>>> code. Everyone in the civil service is Hatched. Everyone.
>
>> But some employees have greater restrictions than others. FBI and Secret
>> Service are higher-restricted employees.
>
> In the few minutes I spent reading to refresh my memory, the Hatch Act
> is largely about agencies following their own procedures. When they fire
> someone or take some sort of adverse action that's against their own
> internal procedures, Office of Special Counsel can investigate and make
> a finding.

There's a list here of "further restricted" agencies under the Hatch Act:

https://osc.gov/Documents/Outreach%20and%20Training/Handouts/A%20Guide%20to%20the%20Hatch%20Act%20for%20Federal%20Employees.pdf

> The Act doesn't impose the same rules on the entire civil service; each
> agency has its own personnel manual for its own needs.
>
> I'd imagine if you are a foreign service officer in the State Department
> or in a trade delegation, what you may say and write in public is even
> more highly restricted than what's imposed upon law enforcement. After
> all, you are representing America, itself, in state to state affairs.
>
> And if you work for CIA, the only public discussion you may have
> concerns your cover job as a travel agent.

On Jun 10, 2023 at 8:13:59 AM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 6/10/2023 2:24 AM, shawn wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Jun 2023 23:09:19 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> She was the Special Agent in Charge of Denver, for gawd's sake. She should
>>> have kept her goddam mouth shut and if she couldn't, she should have quit,
>>> then talked all she liked.
>>
>> I agree she should have stayed quiet. She's not the first agent to
>> have an issue with person in the Oval Office and I'm sure she won't be
>> the last. Just keep the talk to friends or office workers or no one at
>> all but for heavens sake when you take it to the Facebook or any
>> social media where people know who you are and what you do there's no
>> reason to go public. Hell, even most companies have rules against
>> employees talking to the press, and yes, I consider posting on
>> Facebook similar to talking to the press because anyone can see it and
>> you have no idea how it will be taken.
>>
>> Or if she truly had to post in public and didn't want to give up her
>> job then post anonymously. It's not like it's that hard to create a
>> fake account. It would be the wrong thing to do but I'm sure she
>> wouldn't be the first and so long as no one connects the fake account
>> with her there wouldn't be any fallout.
>
> I think the thorn here is her unnecessary -- and frankly, confusing --
> inclusion of the phrase "I would take jail time over a bullet". It's
> hard to see that as other than her self-declared disqualification.
>
> As for her principled stance, at some point civilization depends on
> prioritizing institutions above "personal convictions". E.g., it's why
> I land with both feet on the Capitol rioters...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/01/27/how-a-secret-service-controversy-turned-an-innocent-professors-life-into-an-online-nightmare/

Kerry O'Grady has devoted her career in public relations to managing the
reputations of her corporate clients. And yet, despite years of
pressure-filled triage experience, nothing prepared O'Grady-- now an NYU
communications professor who teaches graduate students about reputation
management-- for the day her own reputation was obliterated online.

The reason: O'Grady was mistakenly identified this week as a Secret Service
agent (also named Kerry O'Grady) who is under investigation for posting a
statement on Facebook that appeared to indicate she preferred jail over being
shot and killed for President Trump.

Reached by phone Wednesday, O'Grady, 33, said she has struggled to plug the
stream of hateful messages that have inundated her Twitter feed and Facebook
page since Tuesday morning, leaving her "defeated and dejected".

To make matters worse, she said, the influx began on the first day of class
this semester, when many students were Googling her name and checking her
Twitter feed for the first time.

"I consider myself a pretty strong person, but this has been a rough 24
hours," she said. "People don't even care to take two seconds and look at my
profile to make sure that I'm the right person. They attack the first person
they see."

The attacks began Tuesday morning as O'Grady sat in her office in midtown
Manhattan and prepared for class. She noticed a trickle of angry tweets on her
feed, which initially confused her. Minutes later, the trickle turned into an
uncontrollable gush, prompting O'Grady to Google her name.

What she found shocked her. The Examiner story about the Secret Service agent
with her same name had gone viral, unleashing a swarm of trolls determined to
hunt down the woman who had criticized President Trump. The agent had deleted
her own social media presence, O'Grady said, leaving her to absorb the
backlash.

The messages, which quickly skyrocketed into the hundreds, were full of
misogynistic name-calling and referred to O'Grady as a "satanic whore" and
"troublemaker", and told her to "burn in hell".

"Women like you and her do not deserve children!!!!!!!" a woman named Tami
Baranowski wrote in a Facebook message. “PERIOD!!!!!!"

"At that point, I kind of got into a very quick problem-solving mode," O'Grady
said. "I teach public relations and corporate communications and my whole goal
was: stop the bleeding as fast as possible."

She said she started by posting a lighthearted statement on social media
pointing out that she wasn't the Kerry O'Grady from the news. Next she created
the hashtag #NotSecretServiceKerry and began responding to her tormentors on
Twitter, hoping the hashtag might catch on. Those that continued to attack,
especially if they had few followers, got blocked, she said. Next, she began
tweeting at media outlets covering the story and enlisting the help of
friends, who began confronting aggressive tweeters online.

The fight lasted all night and into the next day, but a sleep-deprived O'Grady
said she refused to let up because she didn't want to let her hard-earned
professional reputation slip away, especially as a new group of students began
the semester. Unable to stop the tide of outrage entirely, she said she began
to worry about sensitive personal information-- such as her address or phone
number-- being leaked online, potentially jeopardizing her physical safety. At
that point, she said, the attacks no longer felt virtual and she began to feel
paranoid.

O'Grady said the messages she received via Twitter were mostly focused on
angry political rhetoric but the messages that arrived on Facebook were far
more lengthy, personal and unhinged.

Eventually, as media organizations began to publish her hashtag, the online
narrative began to change and the flood of angry messages began to subside.
Despite the vitriol being aimed in her direction, O'Grady said she refused to
fight fire with fire and always responded to her attackers professionally.

"You can ruin someone's life, you really can," she said, referring to the
attacks. "If I didn't handle it the way I did-- if I wasn’t a PR professor
able to quickly come up with a plan-- this could've harmed my credibility and
followed me for years."

Days later, O'Grady was still glued to her phone doing damage control. She
noted that it takes only one person to post an "alternative fact", unleashing
a new round of escalating attacks. She might look victorious to outsiders but
she said that coming into contact with so much hatred has been deeply
unsettling experience.

"I feel defeated," she said. "Even if I was the right person, I'd still be a
human being and that didn't matter to these people."

Despite a nightmarish week, O'Grady said there is one benefit to being the
target of an online smear campaign: Her class lectures on reputation
management have been infused with a new level of credibility.
"I feel like I set a good example for my students for how to handle this type
of situation," she said. "And now I'm a walking case study."

On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 10:20:31 PM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jun 10, 2023 at 8:13:59 AM PDT, "moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > On 6/10/2023 2:24 AM, shawn wrote:
> >> On Fri, 09 Jun 2023 23:09:19 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> She was the Special Agent in Charge of Denver, for gawd's sake. She should
> >>> have kept her goddam mouth shut and if she couldn't, she should have quit,
> >>> then talked all she liked.
> >>
> >> I agree she should have stayed quiet. She's not the first agent to
> >> have an issue with person in the Oval Office and I'm sure she won't be
> >> the last. Just keep the talk to friends or office workers or no one at
> >> all but for heavens sake when you take it to the Facebook or any
> >> social media where people know who you are and what you do there's no
> >> reason to go public. Hell, even most companies have rules against
> >> employees talking to the press, and yes, I consider posting on
> >> Facebook similar to talking to the press because anyone can see it and
> >> you have no idea how it will be taken.
> >>
> >> Or if she truly had to post in public and didn't want to give up her
> >> job then post anonymously. It's not like it's that hard to create a
> >> fake account. It would be the wrong thing to do but I'm sure she
> >> wouldn't be the first and so long as no one connects the fake account
> >> with her there wouldn't be any fallout.
> >
> > I think the thorn here is her unnecessary -- and frankly, confusing --
> > inclusion of the phrase "I would take jail time over a bullet". It's
> > hard to see that as other than her self-declared disqualification.
> >
> > As for her principled stance, at some point civilization depends on
> > prioritizing institutions above "personal convictions". E.g., it's why
> > I land with both feet on the Capitol rioters...
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/01/27/how-a-secret-service-controversy-turned-an-innocent-professors-life-into-an-online-nightmare/

You are the coward cop.