This. All federal employees are expected to comply. Federal service is supposed to be apolitical and nonpartisan. There are many reasons, and they are valid.
Private citizens get to say stuff like this. Secret Service agents do not. If she said this, she should be ousted out of the Secret Service. It shows she doesn’t have the right temperament for the job.
I don’t know whether this violates the Hatch act (and I don’t particularly care). Based on what I presume her feelings are with respect to Trump, if I were her friend, id say that this might be what’s best for her. Maybe I’m wrong, but given losing her job in this type of high profile manner and her being a secret service agent, I’d wager she will be able to find another, more satisfying, job.
The question for me is, her being of this opinion, why did she not tender her resignation the moment of Trump’s inauguration?
That’s kind of what I was thinking…
This made me think about how many Republicans are outraged that campaign finance laws are outrageous attacks on the First Amendment, but the Hatch Act’s prohibition on some pretty basic forms of political expression that are prohibited for some Federal employees? Eh, fuck 'em. They’re only bureaucrats.
Presidential details is only a small part isn’t it?
She could also be assigned to Obama, Bush(es), Clinton or Carter. Plus that whole counterfeiting team.
Speaking of outrage, if we’re all in agreement that the agent was an idiot, how is that any fun for our conservative posters? 
I wonder if there is a severance package if she was fired as opposed to resigning.
Oh, right, lefties are supposed to be a hive mind that protects our own at all costs.
This fired Secret Service agent should be a senator! President! Pope! Super Mecha Pope!
Also, let’s ban guns.
We could talk about stupid tweets in general, and how they may indicate someone is not suitable for a particular job. But I fear there may not be enough of those to keep a thread going.
Surely you can see that this is a non sequitur, though? If I don’t want federal workers drinking alcohol while at work, I don’t think I am a hypocrite for opposing Prohibition more generally.
She should be fired. Not only is she personally unfit to protect the president, she’s putting him in danger even if she’s not on his detail. Suggesting the possibility that any Secret Service agent might not be willing to take a bullet encourages would-be assassins to try it because they might think their chances of success are higher. She shouldn’t be allowed to work for the service when she is actively undermining their mission.
The Secret Service’s remit is rather broader than people seem to think. In addition to protecting the POTUS and VP, they also investigate financial crimes and protect foreign dignitaries. Mahmoud Ahmedinajad had SS protection, to use one example. So did Saddam Hussein. If they had to resign every time the agency protected someone they disliked, there wouldn’t be any of them.
That is not to say that this agent shouldn’t have been fired for publicly broadcasting her views.
Your thinking seems to be a holdover from the Reality Era.
Kim Davis, who refused to do her job of issuing marriage licenses, is still County Clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky.
Color me confused on this point too. For example, I have friends who work for various government agencies, such as NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), NSF (National Science Foundation), … Are you, John Mace, saying these folks are not allowed to make political statements / endorse candidates in Facebook postings for example? I’d be rather surprised if that were the case.
Silly of me to ask a question that can easily be answered with a simple google search. Here is a handy-dandy page expressing what federal employees can and can’t do on social media: https://osc.gov/Pages/The-Hatch-Act-Frequently-Asked-Questions-on-Federal-Employees-and-the-Use-of-Social-Media-and-Email.aspx
To summarize, it appears there are two classes: federal employees in general and “further restricted employees”. For the general ones:
You can read about further restricted employees and more details and examples on that webpage.
So, I really looked this up wondering about my friends, rather than this particular agent (whose actions were dumb…and possibly job-jeopardizing…for other reasons). But, having gone this far, I will just say: It is unclear to me if she has violated the Hatch Act or not but it seems like her statements implicitly referencing her job could be construed as violating…or maybe just skirting very, very close to…“referring to their official titles or positions while engaged in political activity at any time”.
By the way, after reading the additional restrictions on “further restricted employees”, I don’t see them as very relevant to what she did…So, I think the question of whether she violated the Hatch Act would come down to the provision that I noted here.
[And, like all physicists, I am eminently qualified to give legal opinions 
]
Donnie has done more to undermine the mission of the secret service than she could ever do. More dangerous and more notable. And who is he working for?
Do tell.