The question posed, as you quoted me you should know, was: "The question that I would ask is has either given legitimacy to either of their causes?"
The example of Obama inviting BLM to the White House gave them legitimacy they didn't deserve, at least I don't think so, considering that weren't they the ones, or at least at one of their demonstrations, were shouting "Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon", and in another "What do we want? Dead cops now!".
Those two chants seem rather militant, don't you think so?
There is no parallel example in the Trump case that I can recall, specific to giving "Chrisitan terrorists" legitimacy (whatever a Chrisitan terrorist is).
So if I understand your response then, it would seem that you believe that BLM is a legitimate and peaceful activist group, worthy of legitimacy, where as Christians are all terrorists and are not worthy of any legitimacy. An interesting take on that, but not one that I'd share with you.
My point was not about the groups, nor about which may or may not be terrorists, but whom gave or enhanced that group's legitimacy.