This issue's pretty much settled, but raises an uncomfortable general question.
Ideally, protest leadership should be run by people with a stake in an issue, those who will not back down from opposition or become subordinate to "false" allies. But no social movement is perfect, and former true believers can totally become worn down by in-fighting, accused by their idealistic counterparts as the dirty word: "moderate."
Also, the general public is largely unsympathetic or apathetic. The subset that are sympathetic also lie on a scale of support, from mere acknowledgement, to engaging a dialogue with friends and social media, to protest participation, to actual political canvassing. They all represent willing voters and letter-writers to congress, even if some are inartful in their support. A badly worded Tweet can be just as damaging as a badly run protest in the eyes of non-supporters. Even still, supporters of a movement are not fungible, getting rid of one will not guarantee a better ally will pop up.
Black people shouldn't have to settle for "false" allies, but looking throughout history, all white Americans could be classified as false allies. Is Lincoln a false ally to blacks, is Obama a false ally to gays? And when Democratic leadership and Al Gore conceded the 2000 election, did they sell out the Black Congressional Caucus? Of course, past historical behavior/expectations does not condemn our modern day movements to accept the same fate, but the realist in me highly doubts things will be different.
I get the point that white feelings >> black bodies, it's not right and on a karmic level, we shouldn't even have to protest racism in the first place. But meanwhile in our unjust world, somehow Donald Trump's ignorant remarks is drawing more weight than pictures of dead black men, among a huge percentage of people. People should continue to fight, but man, social movements will always be tough...