Brit Hume slammed the editors at The Washington Post for missing the obvious in an opinion piece he said was filled with “huffing and puffing” about Russian collusion.
The Fox News senior political analyst fired a scathing commentary on an op-ed published by The Washington Post titled, “While the Russians attacked, Trump looked the other way.”
“In the face of an unprecedented attack on American democracy by a hostile foreign power, Donald Trump and those who worked for him both as a candidate and a president failed to defend the United States. For this alone, he is unfit to hold office,” the piece, written by Walter Dellinger and Samantha Goldstein, began.
Slamming Trump and his campaign for doing “nothing to stop the Russian assault,” the op-ed concluded with the statement: “During the 2016 election, American democracy was under Russian attack. Candidate Trump encouraged it. When it was over, President Trump did nothing about it.”
Hume called out the missing ingredient in the anti-Trump hit piece, reminding The Post who was actually in office as all of the alleged Russian interference was going on.
“The man who was actually President when the attack occurred is never mentioned in this amazing article,” Hume tweeted, referring to former President Barack Obama who infamously told Russian President Vladimir Putin to “cut it out” in a warning against interfering with the U.S. presidential election.
“Note the huffing and puffing, though, about a President’s duty to ‘preserve, protect and defend the constitution.’ Did no editor even notice?” Hume asked.
The man who was actually President when the attack occurred is never mentioned in this amazing article. Note the huffing and puffing, though, about a President’s duty to “preserve, protect and defend the constitution.” Did no editor even notice? https://t.co/MFPy4Lm9cg
— Brit Hume (@brithume) April 22, 2019
According to Dellinger and Goldstein’s op-ed:
But Russia is what proves his unfitness to serve. Every president swears to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” And everyone who works for him swears to protect the Constitution “against all enemies foreign and domestic.” The Mueller report demonstrates that the president and his closest aides violated these fundamental duties imposed by their oaths of office.
The Mueller report’s unfolding narrative of the Russian attack and Trump’s surrender in the face of it is devastating for someone who was offering himself as a future commander in chief.
And while all of the email hacking and other interference occurred under Obama’s watch, somehow The Post found it perfectly acceptable to place the blame on Trump. Of course, once Trump won the election and could actually take a stand against Russia, he did – declaring in a 2018 interview that he had been “far tougher on Russia than any president in many, many years” and the toughest president on Russia “maybe ever.”
Hume’s burn of The Post for publishing the piece that never even mentioned who the president was at the time of the alleged Russian interfering was applauded on Twitter where many others echoed the criticism.
The editors noticed. They think we are too stupid to.
— George Carl (@georgecarl1955) April 22, 2019
They noticed all right. They were just hoping that no one else would.
— Dave Biros (@davebiros) April 23, 2019
“Obama cyber chief confirms ‘stand down’ order against Russian cyberattacks in summer 2016”https://t.co/GqBNsmDZas
— Brian (@applecharlie5) April 22, 2019
All can agree that these events on BHO’s watch, cannot be “inherited” by any subsequent POTUS.
— Phil Hannum (@hannum_phil) April 22, 2019
No Obama looked the other way ….
— Rick J Lairsey (@RickJLairsey) April 22, 2019
WTF? Are they serious? The man wasn’t even the president. The media is so backwards. They say Trump stood aside as Russia attacked our elections while Obama was president. At the same time, they say this is Obama’s economy ???
— Brian Jernigan (@Bjernigan23) April 22, 2019
No surprise from the Post.
— Marilynn Slade (@MarilynnSlade) April 22, 2019
The post is too buried in their own propaganda to admit they are complicit in the attack on a duly elected president
— John Fleming (@reddukest4) April 22, 2019
Most Post readers wont connect those dots and the article will make readers think badly of President Trump. Those who do connect the dots won’t look badly at the Post because they know the Post is working hard to smear the president and that’s what they want the Post to do.
— TreeFarmer (@TreeFarmFarmer) April 22, 2019
“Did no editor even notice?” I hope that is a rhetorical question. This is the Washington Post. Of course an editor noticed. And what he saw was exactly what he wanted to see. I hope we all know that by now.
— Jim Deimler (@JimDeimler) April 22, 2019
- 52 passengers boarded plane with neg Covid results, test positive after landing in Hong Kong - April 26, 2021
- Supreme Court agrees to hear major gun rights case on concealed handguns - April 26, 2021
- Final Census data shows the blue states likely to lose House seats, and the red states picking them up - April 26, 2021