If this is all true, then why don't use our Constitutional right to impeach a person incapable of running our country? Rather than have these “unsung heroes” in the White House try “to steer the administration in the right direction” and minimize the “the erratic behavior” which “would be more concerning” if it weren’t for them, even though “they are clearly not always successful”. I fail to see the logic in trying to mitigate a threat to our country than to remove that threat indefinitely. The author claims, “no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis” but tell me this- if our elected President is incapable of leading our country, does that not already constitute as a crisis?

Secondly, what gives these officials the right to make these decisions? They aren’t all elected officials, most are appointed by the President himself, whom they just said was irrational. How do we know that the decisions they are making align with our ideals? We don't, because we didn't elect them!

This can lead us into the point that Trump was elected and the people of America picked him. But do we actually know that for sure? How do we know that no one meddled in the election? Most of my thoughts on this topic lead to questions I cannot find answers to. But, I do think if these officials really wanted to make a difference, they would use their evidence, positions, and power to start the process of impeaching our ineffective President rather than writing an anonymous Op-Ed piece complaining about how they don’t get any credit for all their efforts to protect us from just some of our President’s misguided decisions, instability, and his tendency to align with enemies rather than allies.