Representative John Lewis (D-GA), believes that Trump is an illegitimate president-elect, despite the election, despite the electoral college, and despite Vice President Joe Biden’s declaration that the election is over and Donald Trump won.
From the WashingtonPost.com:
John Lewis doesn’t think Donald Trump is a legitimate president
by Aaron Blake
For the first time, a leading Democrat has called into question Donald Trump’s legitimacy as president.
Rep. John Lewis, a Democratic congressman from Georgia and civil-rights icon, told NBC’s Chuck Todd in an interview for Sunday’s “Meet the Press” that he believes Russia’s alleged hacking aimed at helping Trump in the 2016 race makes Trump an illegitimate president.
Asked whether he would forge a relationship with President-elect Trump, Lewis said, “It’s going to be very difficult. I don’t see this president-elect as a legitimate president.”
He added: “I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected, and they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.” Lewis called it a “conspiracy” and added: “That’s not right. That’s not fair. That’s not the open democratic process.”
TDS doesn’t stop there. Former press secretary for Hillary Clinton, Brian Fallon, in an interview with CNN, also said Trump isn’t legitimate.
“Every day there are new developments, new shoes dropping so to speak that call into question the legitimacy of his win.”
Just as Obama has defecated on America in his last days, the Demorats and Leftists are leaving as many of their own proverbial land mines in the way of Donald Trump quite purposefully.
The conflict will not diminish. Demorats are seeing to that.
Note to the GOP: you’d best get your arses together and support Trump’s work.
Having Paul Ryan say on Friday that Trump’s lobbying ban is “dangerous” tells me that he too has sloshed down too much of the DC fruity juice.
Be very careful, Paul Ryan and the GOP.
BZ
Agree, this is stupid. Trump is president elect, get over it. For those who votes the other way, stop saying He is not my president. Sorry buddy he is. Say “I wish he weren’t my president” if you want.
This is just as stupid as Trump saying he would not necessarily accept the outcome if Clinton won.
Democracy means you accept the result, even if you don’t like it. TM
Agreed. It is time to move on. I suspect Trump, in being more of a pragmatist than a politician, will end up doing things I don’t agree with. Tough poop for me. I’ll yell and scream then I’ll have to get over it. He’s the president and I’m not.
BZ
This is so profoundly dangerous on so many levels. And I place blame fully on the sitting president who, if he wanted to, could have defused all of this. But no, he was and is too busy orchestrating each and every roadblock he can to impede the PEOTUS and bring nothing but turmoil to the country.
I cannot believe I have lived to see the day when there is so much open talk such as: Inauguration Protester: ‘We’re Not in Favor of the Peaceful Transition of Power’ http://freebeacon.com/politics/inauguration-protester-not-in-favor-peaceful-transition-power/ or this from the Daily Mail: Rosie O’Donnell calls for MARTIAL LAW and Trump’s inauguration to be delayed until he is ‘cleared’ of involvement in Russian hack. And now a member of Congress is openly questioning the legitimacy of a legal election?
Per Wiki: In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.
I have to ask: why are these not considered acts of sedition? At what point does ‘free speech’ cross a line and become incitement to rebellion?
What will happen come and after Inauguration Day? Will there be continuing protests of various sorts, including violent? And to what end? Assassination attempts by some loon fired up by Lewis’s comments and wanting to eliminate a ‘non legitimate’ president? Or insurrection??
I know; it’s remarkably reprehensible. Thank you Abigail.
BZ
The wisdom of John Lewis:
“When asked about where in the Constitution, Congress gets the right to force Americans to purchase health insurance, Congressman Lewis said the following:
Well, when you start off with the Preamble of the Constitution, you talk about the pursuit of happiness. You go to the 14th Amendment–it’s equal protection under the law and we have not repealed the 14th Amendment. People have a right to have health care. It’s not a privilege but a right
”
Perhaps he should read the Constitution.
Or the Declaration.
He’s a loon. The 14th says nothing of the kind. As per normal, Leftists are making shit up wholesale.
BZ
Mr. Trump won because the American people wanted him to win. He was opposed by the RINOs and won the nomination anyway. He beat the Hillary machine and the (P)regressives. All these “smart” people cannot see their whinny posturing is destroying their legitimacy, not his, in the eyes of those who elected him.
The next two years will probably be full of turmoil. Look for the entrenched RINOs to be challenged in the primaries and the entrenched Demorats swept out come the mid terms.
Mr. Trump is pragmatic. He is also a hardballer.
Agreed.
BZ
Abigail, Trump started this by saying that the jury was out whether he would accept the election results if Clinton won.
As to when does free speech cross the line? I can point you to a certain blog where the current First Lady and her children were referred to as “monkeys” – that crosses the line for me!
You didn’t find that here, John. And that is still protected speech. The First Amendment doesn’t exist for everyday speech; it exists for challenging speech. I don’t believe in censorship of the Left or the Right, with the exception of the advocacy of killing someone. And even then I’ll make exemptions. OBL being one, for example. Too many people died and fought for our First Amendment, including my father in WWII. And, if I’m not mistaken, during Bush, there was an entire blog favored by Leftists called The Smirking Chimp.
BZ
‘He (Trump) started it.’
John, do you know how that sounds and since you said it, how it makes you seem?
Moving past the implications of immaturity, your statement is plain wrong. Evidenced is a lack of understanding of the distinctions between name calling and calls for violence. Yes, both are speech but the similarity ends there. It is entirely disingenuous to conflate the two and to point to the one as tacit permission of the other.
Just making the point that Trump did not say he would support an orderly transition of power if Clinton won. Frankly, I think there is hypocrisy on both sides. Lots of the right were babbling on about “lock and load” if Clinton won, and now the right is saying things such as “he is not my president”
I agree with BZ that Trump is going to do a lot of things which are not to the taste of many people who voted for him.
I am afraid there are going to be a lot of disappointed people – no wall, no prosecution of Clinton, no ban on Muslims, and, saddest of all, there is no way that he can bring back all the low skilled jobs – sorry that boat has sailed.
I think Trump is going to surprise a lot of people. I think a wall is going to occur, I believe the further importation of Syrian refugees is going to stop. Technology is killing a good percentile of the low-skilled jobs but contrasted with that are manufacturing jobs — which I think he’s going to do his damnedest to keep. Much of what was wrong with the prior admin will be returned to normal with his cabinet. The EPA won’t be running amok and neither will the IRS. As to Hillary? That will depend on Obama’s pardon. If it occurs, she’s untouchable.
One additional point, BTW, in terms of low-skilled workers. Low-or-no-skilled workers such as those from Mexico or Muslims from the Middle East are needed less, not more. Technology and machines are beginning to harvest orchards, pick fruit, etc. Kiosks are replacing humans for ordering food at many restaurants. This will become more prevalent, not less. Amazon is opening a test store where cashiers are entirely unnecessary.
Mexicans are not generally bringing computer skills, nor are refugees. Low-skilled jobs are going away, jobs requiring computer and digital skills are increasing. Then those persons who either stormed the country or were imported as nothing more than paid votes will hang on the food stamp and welfare rolls — Mr Obama being the Food Stamp Emperor — as a drain on the country.
A drain YOU and ME will pay for whilst, simultaneously, Mexico wants Reconquista and Muslims want a Caliphate.
BZ
Big beautiful wall all along the border, paid by the Mexicans? Really? Let’s wait and see.
As to Clinton, could Obama “pardon” her? For what would she be pardoned? (Serious question, not a wind up)
PS should have congratulated you for quoting from a UK newspaper as to a rag.
John, yes, that is lawful. Think Ford and Nixon. Nixon was never impeached. He resigned before the articles were approved. Ford still pardoned him.
You and I disagree about a wall. As to who will pay for it? Time will tell.
BZ
Thanks for the response, but for what could Obama pardon Clinton? (Again serious question)
As you say time will tell on the wall – to honor his promise, I think it needs to be a wall all along the border – a bit more wall does not cut it in my book. Feel free to start a new thread if this one is getting too skinny.
And, I did not mean to imply that you used that language on your blog.
John, I was not aware that Trump actually said he would not support an orderly transition of power.
As for the ‘lock and load’ if Clinton won, I doubt that was meant to imply people would take to the streets to interfere with ‘an orderly transition’. Living out of the country, I could be wrong though.
As for crossing the free speech line, my question was not referencing impolite or offensive, etc., speech, rather when does it become sedition. In doing a quick research I find the Supreme Court Justice Douglas 1949 wrote in a majority opinion “it is only through debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people….and that in a democracy free speech must occur even if it causes disputes, unrest, or “stirs people to anger.”
“freedom of speech, though not absolute, is protected against censorship or punishment unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance or unrest.”
At what point does calling into question the legitimacy of the legally elected etc., president begin to produce such an effect?
During the third presidential debate, when asked whether he would support an orderly transition, he said he would “get back to you” said he would keep people in suspense.
The “lock and load” comment came from the comments on another blog. And the author of the blog said that he would continue to fight if Vlinfon won, and not with words.
When does free speech become sedition? Good question. Think a lot has been said on both sides that is unfortunate and furthers neither cause.
It was annoyed my enough when news was reduced to sound bites…those days look good now. It is unfortunate that people running for office can happily spout whatever “facts” they wished. Nearly fell of my chair at the comment that the US is the highest taxed nation. The trouble is that someone people who heard that probably believed it…and on it goes.
Elections have consequences, they lost… Period, end of subject.
They do indeed.
BZ
John Lewis is just another typical dumb aged negro who represents a whole lot of dumb negroes.
He shows his stupidity every time he pontificates.
Yes pontificates,,,,attempting to show his prowess and intellect on the subject matter.
This only demonstrates to anyone with an IQ over 125 just hat he really is.
He is safe in his fiefdom, unless he is caught in a criminal act.
I predict that will happen during a Trump Presidency!!
What criminal act do you think he has committed?