When Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) said Donald Trump wasn’t a “legitimate” president, the media’s headlines reflected the facts: : “John Lewis calls Trump an illegitimate president” (MSNBC), “John Lewis: Donald Trump is not a ‘legitimate’ president” (CNN).
When Trump responded, telling the 30-year politician to “spend more time on fixing and helping his district…rather than falsely complaining about the election results,” the media carpet bombed the country with headlines accusing him of “attacking,” “slamming,” “ripping,” and “blasting” the 12-term Congressman and “civil rights icon.”
The media’s double-standard in reporting on Republicans and Democrats isn’t unusual, but giving a pass to someone who uses an alleged half-truth conspiracy as a legitimate reason to doubt the integrity of America’s electoral process is, in part, why Trump was elected in the first place.
“I don’t see this president-elect as a legitimate president,” Lewis told NBC’s Chuck Todd. “I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.”
If we were to take as fact the two allegations 1.) that Russia hacked the election, and that 2.) the hack led to Hillary’s defeat, would these concessions mean that Trump’s presidency is illegitimate? It’s true that the contents of the illegally obtained emails—in addition to her “Deplorables” comment, her FBI investigation, her voice, and her personality—were instrumental in Hillary’s defeat. One could even argue, as Mr. Lewis attempted to do, that the content of the hacked emails “helped destroy” Hillary’s campaign. Neither admission undermines the accuracy of the email themselves. To date there is no evidence that their emails—about rigging the primary, colluding with the media, expressing the party or candidate’s mockery of voter sentiments—were fake, false, or doctored.
The most revelatory aspect of this story is not the fact that Lewis was made a victim by the media, but that Lewis himself once used the exact same rationale to describe the exact same actions not as criminal and destructive, but as…heroic.
“In keeping with the philosophy and the discipline of non-violence, and keeping with the teaching of David Thoreau and people like Gandhi and others, and if you believe in something, that it’s not right, and something that is unjust, and you’re willing to defy customs, tradition, bad laws, then you have a conscience.” This Mr. Lewis said in reference to NSA leaker Edward Snowden. “You have a right to defy those laws and be willing to pay the price….Sometimes you have act by the dictates of your conscience. You have to do it.”
What’s the difference?
In one instance, Lewis thinks illegally obtained information makes a man an illegitimate president.
In another instance, Lewis thinks illegally obtained information makes a man…something akin to Ghandi.
In both instances, the information that was illegally obtained was factual.
The question is, would the media be so fact-blind to such blatant hypocrisies if the hypocrite in question weren’t a black Democrat.
That’s a rhetorical question.
And let’s not even bother getting into how Liberals would feel about evil Mother Russian granting asylum to hero Edward Snowden.