As President Donald Trump enters his third week in office, all manner of things have been going on designed to remove him from office.
Secret Service – Denver district
On Tuesday, January 24, 2017, the Washington Examiner reported that a female Secret Service agent said she did not want to ‘take a bullet’ for him:
Kerry O’Grady, the special agent in charge of the Secret Service’s Denver district, oversees coordination with Washington-based advance teams for all presidential candidate and presidential trips to the area, including all upcoming or future trips by the president, vice president or Trump administration officials.
Incredibly, given her position, she has been foaming at the mouth on Facebook:
O’Grady’s posts triggered at least one complaint to the office that oversees investigations into Secret Service misbehavior, two knowledgeable sources told the Washington Examiner.
In one Facebook post O’Grady wrote at 11:07 p.m. on a Sunday in October, she endorsed Hillary Clinton and said she would endure “jail time” rather than “taking a bullet” for what she regarded as a “disaster” for America.
Her posts from October could be construed to violate the Hatch Act, which prohibits influencing an election. O’Grady posted:
“As a public servant for nearly 23 years, I struggle not to violate the Hatch Act. So I keep quiet and skirt the median,” she wrote. “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 Examiner contacted the Secret Service and received this reassuring (not) reply:
The USSS is aware of the postings and we are looking into the matter.
The Examiner also contacted O’Grady, who then attempted to walk back her sentiments:
O’Grady said she took down the post after two to three days of greater reflection and wasn’t trying to imply she wouldn’t take a bullet for Trump or any officials in the Trump administration.
“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 said.
What, one wonders, does she mean by ‘the mission’?
After the inauguration, O’Grady got stuck in again:
O’Grady posted the logo for the Women’s March on Denver as her Facebook cover backdrop on Inauguration Day, Friday, Jan. 21 at 12:25 p.m.
When one of her Facebook followers commented that “none of these women represent me #justsayin,” O’Grady countered that “all of these women represent me! Proud to say it! #nasty.” That back and forth, captured in a screengrab of the post, no longer appears on O’Grady’s Facebook page.
Women anti-Trump activists have taken on the label of “nasty woman” to demonstrate their opposition to him. The phrase is a reference to Trump’s remark calling Clinton “such a nasty woman” in the final moments of the presidential debate in late October.
At 11:23 p.m. on Inauguration Day, she updated her profile picture to an artist’s rendering of Princess Leia with the words, “A woman’s place is in the resistance.” “The resistance,” with its allusion to the rebels in the “Star Wars” movies, has become a moniker for those opposing Trump’s presidency.
The Examiner says that it is unclear whether Secret Service Agents are allowed to post so freely online. That said, agents in training are discouraged from having an Internet presence for security reasons.
The Examiner posted a screenshot of O’Grady’s online messages, some of which are part of a larger conversation.
She issued a statement but, until this is sorted out, Trump should stay away from her district.
O’Grady is currently off duty pending further investigation.
Former Defense Department official sounds off
On Thursday February 2, the Washington Times reported that a Defense Department official from the Obama administration wrote an editorial for Foreign Policy suggesting a military coup against Trump!
In an editorial penned for Foreign Policy, senior Pentagon policy official Rosa Brooks publicly suggested a military insurrection against the Trump administration may be the only option to oust one of the most divisive presidents in American history.
“Donald Trump’s first week as president has made it all too clear: Yes, he is as crazy as everyone feared,” Ms. Brooks wrote. “[One] possibility is one that until recently I would have said was unthinkable in the United States of America: a military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders.”
She apparently felt comfortable writing that.
She should have her collar felt. Perhaps she will once Jeff Sessions is confirmed as Attorney General.
On the streets
A February 17 general strike is being planned:
There are important laws that have been unenforced for years. Many blame the laxity on Obama. I would go all the way back to the Clinton administration (1993-2001), because a number of the people who served then were part of the Obama White House.
The Trump administration must bring back enforcement of laws regarding plotting against the United States.
The aforementioned examples could very well fall under one or both of the following.
Rebellion or insurrection
18 U.S. Code § 2383 states:
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
18 U.S. Code § 2384 states:
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
It is no accident that Senate Democrats are dragging their feet on confirming Trump’s nominees.
The longer they delay the shakier Trump’s presidency will appear — or so they think.
Again, it is no accident that the president has surrounded himself with solid military men. He needs them.