In October, O'Grady posted on Facebook "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 a disaster to this country and the strong and amazing women and minorities who reside here. Hatch Act be damned. I am with Her."
The "Her" O'Grady was referring to is the felon, Hillary Clinton. The Hatch Act she was referring to is a 1939 law barring certain federal employees from engaging in political activity to promote fairness and non-partisanship within the workplace, and the Secret Service falls under that act.
But it isn't only the fact that she engaged in political activity, it's that she is stating clearly that she refuses to protect the presidency of the United States and doesn't seem to be able to separate the office from the person holding that office.
"It was an internal struggle for me but as soon as I put it up, I thought it was not the sentiment that I needed to share because I care very deeply about the mission," she wrote.
Of course, that's nonsense.
If O'Grady really cared "about the mission," the question of Trump vs. Clinton wouldn't even come up. The idea that she would rather go to jail than perform the solemn duty of a Secret Service agent, regardless of whom holds the office of president, is very clear evidence that she would be a questionable agent at best to protect our nation's president.
She's on paid leave, which is understandable based upon the Constitution. But once the investigation is over, and if she is found to have actually said those words, she needs to be fired and replaced with a patriot who would take a bullet for any president of the United States.
I wouldn't let her walk me across Fifth Avenue.