Temporary assignments from other agencies. Some may actually have been paper pushers, or perhaps placed to ensure Trump was less than adequately protected.
An easily concievable allegory comes to mind. Vice president of a bank is scheming to steal from the bank and he hires a crew of bank robbers to execute his plan. Then, he tells them the bank schedule, when it is least protected, when perhaps a safety drill might be planned (so that any alarm is treated as benign by outside police forces), and then even arranges to have only 2 guards on that night, instead of the usual 4 marching the perimeter.
It doesn't mean the guards were in on it, or the police were in on it. Rather, the situation has been orchestrated by someone in a position to do it to make the conditions for a successful heist to be at their maximum.
I think OP simply takes one line of reasoning, probably playing in to OPs biases, and goes full steam on that, instead of considering alternative possibilities.
Temporary assignments from other agencies. Some may actually have been paper pushers, or perhaps placed to ensure Trump was less than adequately protected.
I think that is very likely the case.
An easily concievable allegory comes to mind. Vice president of a bank is scheming to steal from the bank and he hires a crew of bank robbers to execute his plan. Then, he tells them the bank schedule, when it is least protected, when perhaps a safety drill might be planned (so that any alarm is treated as benign by outside police forces), and then even arranges to have only 2 guards on that night, instead of the usual 4 marching the perimeter.
It doesn't mean the guards were in on it, or the police were in on it. Rather, the situation has been orchestrated by someone in a position to do it to make the conditions for a successful heist to be at their maximum.
I think OP simply takes one line of reasoning, probably playing in to OPs biases, and goes full steam on that, instead of considering alternative possibilities.