On 6/10/23 12:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>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,