It appears Trump was right..... the media is rigging the election!

Report: Clinton Took Over 96 Percent of Journalist Contributions

The Center for Public Integrity analyzed the political contributions of journalists in the 2016 cycle, and discovered that more than 96 percent of those gifts went to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

"People identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump," the Center reported Monday. "Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton."

"About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee," the report explained. Only about 50 identifiable journalists have combined to give roughly $14,000 to Donald Trump.

The report excluded talk radio personalities, paid TV pundits, and the like, such as former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.

This skew in Clinton's favor might help explain the disproportionate negative coverage Trump has received in the mainstream media. Granted, the Republican nominee's comments about women were genuinely offensive, but so are many of the bombshells revealed by WikiLeaks from inside the Clinton campaign (especially offensive to Catholics).

Furthermore, the Project Veritas videos have already pushed key Democratic operatives out of the Clinton campaign. While major media outlets have largely ignored the story (Democrats confessing to long-term voter fraud and to orchestrating violence at Trump rallies), the videos are trending on YouTube.

<continue>

http://pjmedia.com/election/2016/10/21/report-clinton-took-over-96-percent-of-journalist-contributions/

This deduction is based on an unproven assumption that people who contribute money to a side, lie about the opposition.

In order to make that reasoning work, you have to declare that EVERYONE who contributes to ANYONE, follows that by lying about everything.

So that means that anyone who donates money to support Trump is ALSO a liar, actively working to distort the facts.

So you have a zero-sum game going on with this.

If you want to make this fantasy work, you need to prove directly that each specific journalist who contributed money to a side, also distorted their reporting in an identifiable way to support their side.

Without the ;proof of actual wrongdoing, you don't have a case.

And even if you find one or two people who you can prove lied, you still only have those one or two. Claiming that ONE example proves that EVERYONE is bad, again will backfire on your goals.

So find proof of across the board lying, or you are just fantasizing to make yourself feel better about the bad news for your side.

well,OwlGore thunk so!

guess you will wait until the guilty Parties come up with a mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa?
You would be in for a long wait indeed!

Hillary: If you like your corruption, you can keep your corruption

The stain of corruption darkens everything that the Clintons touch.

Second only to national security, it is the responsibility of the president to uphold the law, not to position him or herself above it.

Setting the wheels of corruption in motion, the Obama administration has fundamentally transformed the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from law enforcement agencies into political hit-squads dedicated to suppressing opposition, silencing criticism and protecting the powerful from the consequences of their criminal activities.

In July of this year, Judicial Watch obtained FBI documents through a federal court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, which showed the following:

(1) “IRS officials stated that the agency was targeting conservative groups because of their ideology and political affiliation”;

(2) The FBI and DOJ had an abundance of evidence “suggesting illegal targeting, perjury, and obstruction of justice”;

(3) “Both the FBI and the DOJ collaborated with Lois Lerner and the IRS to try to prosecute and jail Obama’s political opponents”; and

(4) The FBI investigation “looked the other way when it came to Obama’s IRS criminality.”

Also in July, FBI Director James Comey provided shocking details from the Bureau investigation, saying that Clinton and her team at the Department of State were “extremely careless” when it came to handling classified materials; it found 110 emails on 52 separate threads that contained classified information.

Yet Comey made the appalling decision not to refer the email server evidence for prosecution by the DOJ; according to a Fox News report, one person close to the yearlong probe claimed that career agents and attorneys involved in the case “unanimously believed that Hillary should have been charged.”

Not only did Comey inappropriately absolve Clinton of any wrongdoing, he offered immunity to her aides, seemingly to obstruct rather than facilitate further investigation; he allowed witnesses of the alleged criminal activity to serve as Clinton’s “lawyers”; and he physically destroyed evidence contained on the laptops of Clinton’s staff.

Recently released FBI documents, according to Powerline, indicate that Clinton aide Patrick Kennedy “tried to bribe the FBI to change the classification of a Benghazi document so as to enable Hillary’s false claim that she didn’t send or receive classified information on her illegal home server.”

In addition, Hillary Clinton had email exchanges with her IT expert Bryan Pagliano, undermining a claim, made under oath, that she did not recall discussing with him the management of the private, unsecured email server she used at State — a server we can now conclude was set up to conceal the “pay to play” scheme between the Department of State and the Clinton Foundation.

According to The Spectator: “From 2001 to 2015, the Clinton Foundation raised over $2 billion in donations. From February 2001 to May 2015, Bill Clinton gave 637 speeches and made $132,021,691 in speaking fees alone. Hillary gave 92 speeches from February 2013 to March 2015. She was paid $21,648,000. While the Clintons made speeches to Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, it was the foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation that were the most disturbing.”

Of those cases described in Peter Schweizer’s book “Clinton Cash,” one directly affected national security. Rosatom, a state-owned Russian company, gained control of one-fifth of America’s uranium reserves. “Shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One,” states a New York Times report, Bill Clinton “received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

We now learn through James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas that Hillary Clinton and her acolytes have used unethical and perhaps illegal means to secure her election to the presidency, including using hired “provocateurs,” some even mentally ill, to instigate violence at Republican events. The clandestine videos also revealed discussions of voter fraud schemes taking advantage of sloppy registration policies for the purpose of registering otherwise ineligible voters. In another Project Veritas video, a Democrat activist who bragged about disrupting Donald Trump campaign events was found to be on Clinton’s campaign payroll after a search of Federal Election Commission records was conducted.

Electing Hillary Clinton will be an endorsement of permanent political corruption and consent for the use of government as an instrument to extinguish dissent.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/302049-hillary-if-you-like-your-corruption-you-can-keep

Don't watch or pay attention to news much do you? On any level?

Only the deaf, blind and unwilling can't see the media bias in news coverage!

You probably think FOX is the only bias network

That musta been on her private side. Her public side didn't take a thing. She does have a private and public stance....she's admitted that.

430 PEOPLE out of 100s of thousands,,? Yes , seems very skewed,,,

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/obama-speaks-rigged-elections-2008


<“That’s why we need paper trails on these new electronic machines so that you actually have something that you can hang on to after you’ve punched that letter—make sure it hasn’t been hacked into,” he added, admitting that even Democrats have "monkeyed around" with election results:

"I want to be honest, it’s not as if it’s just Republicans who have monkeyed around with elections in the past. Sometimes, Democrats have, too.">

Gonna hate to see him go, but Love to see Hilary win

Thank you all. I don't think there is any better place in the world to be able to laugh hysterically at politics.

What part of that didn't you understand? The math?

OMG!
We can't trust the media!

But wait...this article was in the media!

So...the article is biased about the bias of the media bias, biasedly.

I can't trust it! It could all be a subterfuge and this article is attempting to rig the election for Trump!

I don't know what to do!

Wait...I know! I'm only going to trust news sites that just tell me they are unbiased before blindly accepting their speculation and allegations!

That'll work.

I just need some sort of message that I can inherently trust the journalist or author.

Pshew. I read this in the article.

Now I don't have to question anything he says and it must all be true!

I feel so much better now.

Crisis. Averted.

It has started!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/22/calibration-error-changes-gop-votes-to-dem-in-illinois-county.html

Damn...and I thought I could get away from the election ********.

382000 given (by 430 people) to Clinton
14000 (from 50 people) to Trump

382/396 = 96 percent


the math is the easiest most verifiable part

the difficult part is understanding that 430 people (of various decision making levels) out of hundreds of thousands in an industry ,, doesnt amount to proof of 'bias' or even significant impact,,,

sore losers on both sides

I do remember the whinging about how much press the media gave Trump when he was in the lead

but now that he isnt its about the TYPE of press he is getting,,lol