Problems with that holy protection

Yesterday I mentioned the *New York Times* op-ed by an anonymous White House official saying they were part of the internal resistance, keeping the nasty guy from harming the country. Today, Melissa McEwan of Shakesville adds:

As long as they stay working within the administration, every single horrible thing that Trump does now gets filtered through the prism of questioning whether it was one of the things they support, or one of the things they supposedly tried to stop but failed. Are they really unable to stop Trump's ongoing and escalating war on the press, for example, or are they actually okay with it?

Then there was a video of the nasty guy at a rally and a man behind him (there as a supportive prop) seemed to question the speaker. That, says McEwan, means there was a problem of vetting who stands behind the speaker.

Which should make all of us wonder: Are the security staff part of the "White House Resistance" and deliberately letting things slide? How can we even know the answer to that question, even if we're reassured it isn't the case? After all, the anonymous official disclosed they are willing to lie to "protect the country," and we're supposed to just trust them that whatever that means to them will mean the same thing to us.

I hope you're beginning to see, if you didn't already, the many problems with the "White House Resistance."