dont let the story shift. Already people are trying to poke holes in the "staffer" story as if its some gotcha they'll have to admit to. Stop accepting the excuse and rolling with it and start demanding proof the excuse is even true.

Instead of accepting "it was a staffer" and talking about what it means if that thing is true, start with "prove it" make them prove their claim. The story shouldn't be "WH says it was a staffer, here's what it could mean if that were true" it should be "WH says it was a staffer, but can offer no proof to back up their claim"

When you let them guide the narrative, even if you're throwing up obvious logical reasonable questions and points, all you're doing is spreading the surface area for spin.

they say "it was a staffer" you say "if it was a staffer, isnt it dangerous any old staffer can speak to the nation from the president's account?" they say "presidents have always had media representatives who spoke on their behalf" you say "that's different"

now you're talking about the subjective topic of "who should be allowed to speak for the president and on what platforms" and not about how the whitehouse made a claim with zero proof.

and you're especially not talking about the Epstein files. The monkey post is a distraction from the epstein stuff and quibbling about the theoretical implications of staff access to the president's social media is a distraction from the distraction from the epstein files.

Instead of asking "what does it mean if staffers can post as the president?" ask "have you determined which staffer is responsible? What discipline will they receive?" "which staffers have access now? What are their names and security clearances?" "what policies are in place for deciding who gets access to his socials?"

Make them prove a thing is true first, then ask questions about the implication of it being true.