In an extraordinary display of hyperbole, NBC’s Chuck Todd claimed on “The Today Show” Wednesday morning that the election of Donald Trump could “trigger a constitutional crisis.”

Speaking in reference to Trump’s handling of the Trump University controversy, specifically his questioning of the judge overseeing the case, Todd called Trump’s behavior “borderline irresponsible.”

Mr. Todd’s sudden concern for the integrity of the Constitution comes only after Trump humiliated the mainstream media.

More from LifeZette TV

MORE NEWS: Prince Harry Plans To Fly Meghan Markle And Their Son Around In Private Helicopters

“If he did this while in office he could trigger a constitutional crisis,” Todd asserted. Todd’s concern for the Constitution is noteworthy, as it seems to be an entirely new feature of the host’s political persona.

Todd didn’t seem concerned with President Obama potentially causing a constitutional crisis during one of his numerous end-runs around Congress. He barely batted an eyelid when Obama granted effective amnesty to swathes of illegal immigrants under the guise of work authorization.

Do you agree that protesting is acceptable, but rioting is not? Yes No Email Address (required) By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement Results Vote

The former White House correspondent hardly emitted a yawn when Obama’s illegal and unconstitutional 2012 recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were deemed to be just that by the Supreme Court.

And indeed, no warning of a looming constitutional crisis squeaked through Todd’s lips when Obama himself questioned the decision of the highest court in the land following the Citizens United ruling.

No, Todd’s sudden concern for the integrity of the Constitution comes only after Trump humiliated the mainstream media on Tuesday during a press conference, eviscerating journalists like Todd for their liberal bias and sloppy, ideologically motivated reporting.

MORE NEWS: Racial Justice Activist From Indianapolis Admits She’s Actually White – ‘Used Blackness’ For Personal Gain

[lz_jwplayer video=”BQ8axOSt” ads=”false”]

“I think the political press is among the most dishonest people that I have ever met, I have to tell you. I see the stories, and I see the way they’re couched,” Trump said.

Todd and company are horrified at the notion of a Republican president ready to fight back against their biased framing and ideological interpretation of facts. During Trump’s press conference, one reporter went as far as to suggest that Trump is refusing to submit himself to the same scrutiny to which all presidential candidates and presidents must ultimately submit.

But similar accusations are rarely directed at the Obama administration by television talking heads such as Todd, despite the fact that many serious journalists have criticized the Obama administration’s relationship with the media, which has been called “Orwellian.”

“In many ways, this is the least transparent administration ever, in terms of access by media to what’s going on in this administration,” CNN’s Brian Stelter said in April.

CNN White House reporter Michelle Kosinski agreed, calling the media’s relationship with the Obama administration “extremely controlled.”

[lz_related_box id=”140891″]

In 2013, a top Associated Press official, Santiago Lyon, writing for The New York Times, described the Obama administration’s “systematic” attempts to “bypass the media by releasing a sanitized visual record of his activities” — attempts Lyon described as “manifestly undemocratic.”

USA Today Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page said the Obama administration is “more dangerous” to the media than any other in history, while former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson said it was “the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering.”

But liberal activists masquerading as serious journalists — such as Todd — don’t care about that, as long as a secretive administration with little regard for the Constitution is doing things with which they agree.

What they cannot stand for is a potential president and administration that will not only act in ways with which they disagree, but challenge them directly when they frame such actions in a false, ideologically biased narrative.