In fact it is not only laughable, but a sorry bit of evidence how debauchery has entered our society as an acceptable norm. How many Americans only keep tuned to the liberal lying media machine, forming their decisions and shrouding hillary with a wall of protection from her criminal 30+year journey of politics, winning through deception and cheered by the knowing l*****t.

The Center for Public Integrity's mission is "To serve democracy by revealing abuses of power, corruption and betrayal of public trust by powerful public and private institutions, using the tools of investigative journalism." It p***es itself as being one of the nations oldest and largest nonpartisan, non-profit Pulitzer Prize winning investigative news organizations. So when it reveals that the vast majority of journalists contributing to the p**********l e******n are supporting Democrat Hillary Clinton, one has to look at the gravity of what is being reported. The Center reports some 430 people who work in journalism have donated about $382,000 to Clinton-that's 96% of all the money donated to both candidates from journalists.

The results are as would be expected. One example, reported by the Center says, "New Yorker television critic Emily Nussbaum, a newly minted Pulitzer Prize winner, spent the Republican National Convention pen-pricking p**********l nominee Donald Trump as a misogynist shyster running an "ugly and xenophobic campaign." What Nussbaum didn't disclose in her dispatches: she contributed $250 to Democrat Hillary Clinton in April." While $250 doesn't sound like much, it is a statement of tremendous import. In my days of reporting, my personal policy was that I would never show any kind of bias toward a candidate by contributing to the campaign or becoming too cozy with members of a campaign staff.

We can see that isn't the case in this e******n. Even Trump mentioned in the last debate that it was three to one against him, a reference to how the so-called "impartial moderators" were favoring Clinton. This comes as no surprise, however, as even a May 2015 poll by Rasmussen suggested that the majority of Americans expect biased coverage. Rasmussen reported, "When it comes to the 2016 p**********l campaign, only 23% believe most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage. Fifty-nine percent (59%) think that coverage will be slanted instead, with 36% who say most reporters will try to help Hillary Clinton during the campaign and 23% who say they will try to hurt her bid for the White House instead."

There is an old adage that covers just about anything: Follow the money. The money says that journalists favor Clinton by some 96% of the donations they give. And these are just the ones who do not see it as a conflict of interest to give to a political candidate. Those polled thought the media would be slanted, and the contributions by journalists prove it. They wouldn't be giving to Clinton if they didn't support her. That automatically biases anything they would report. As Isaiah 59:14 says, "And justice is turned back, and righteousness stands afar off: for t***h is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter." T***h, indeed, has fallen in the street, and these so-called "journalists" don't even try to hide their iniquity.

Do you believe hillary would lose by a landslide if the media reported t***hful and balanced on both hillary and Trump?

In fact it is not only laughable, but a sorry bit of evidence how debauchery has entered our society as an acceptable norm. How many Americans only keep tuned to the liberal lying media machine, forming their decisions and shrouding hillary with a wall of protection from her criminal 30+year journey of politics, winning through deception and cheered by the knowing l*****t.

The Center for Public Integrity's mission is "To serve democracy by revealing abuses of power, corruption and betrayal of public trust by powerful public and private institutions, using the tools of investigative journalism." It p***es itself as being one of the nations oldest and largest nonpartisan, non-profit Pulitzer Prize winning investigative news organizations. So when it reveals that the vast majority of journalists contributing to the p**********l e******n are supporting Democrat Hillary Clinton, one has to look at the gravity of what is being reported. The Center reports some 430 people who work in journalism have donated about $382,000 to Clinton-that's 96% of all the money donated to both candidates from journalists.

The results are as would be expected. One example, reported by the Center says, "New Yorker television critic Emily Nussbaum, a newly minted Pulitzer Prize winner, spent the Republican National Convention pen-pricking p**********l nominee Donald Trump as a misogynist shyster running an "ugly and xenophobic campaign." What Nussbaum didn't disclose in her dispatches: she contributed $250 to Democrat Hillary Clinton in April." While $250 doesn't sound like much, it is a statement of tremendous import. In my days of reporting, my personal policy was that I would never show any kind of bias toward a candidate by contributing to the campaign or becoming too cozy with members of a campaign staff.

We can see that isn't the case in this e******n. Even Trump mentioned in the last debate that it was three to one against him, a reference to how the so-called "impartial moderators" were favoring Clinton. This comes as no surprise, however, as even a May 2015 poll by Rasmussen suggested that the majority of Americans expect biased coverage. Rasmussen reported, "When it comes to the 2016 p**********l campaign, only 23% believe most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage. Fifty-nine percent (59%) think that coverage will be slanted instead, with 36% who say most reporters will try to help Hillary Clinton during the campaign and 23% who say they will try to hurt her bid for the White House instead."

There is an old adage that covers just about anything: Follow the money. The money says that journalists favor Clinton by some 96% of the donations they give. And these are just the ones who do not see it as a conflict of interest to give to a political candidate. Those polled thought the media would be slanted, and the contributions by journalists prove it. They wouldn't be giving to Clinton if they didn't support her. That automatically biases anything they would report. As Isaiah 59:14 says, "And justice is turned back, and righteousness stands afar off: for t***h is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter." T***h, indeed, has fallen in the street, and these so-called "journalists" don't even try to hide their iniquity.

Do you believe hillary would lose by a landslide if the media reported t***hful and balanced on both hillary and Trump?

In fact it is not only laughable, but a sorry bit of evidence how debauchery has entered our society as an acceptable norm. How many Americans only keep tuned to the liberal lying media machine, forming their decisions and shrouding hillary with a wall of protection from her criminal 30+year journey of politics, winning through deception and cheered by the knowing l*****t.

The Center for Public Integrity's mission is "To serve democracy by revealing abuses of power, corruption and betrayal of public trust by powerful public and private institutions, using the tools of investigative journalism." It p***es itself as being one of the nations oldest and largest nonpartisan, non-profit Pulitzer Prize winning investigative news organizations. So when it reveals that the vast majority of journalists contributing to the p**********l e******n are supporting Democrat Hillary Clinton, one has to look at the gravity of what is being reported. The Center reports some 430 people who work in journalism have donated about $382,000 to Clinton-that's 96% of all the money donated to both candidates from journalists.

The results are as would be expected. One example, reported by the Center says, "New Yorker television critic Emily Nussbaum, a newly minted Pulitzer Prize winner, spent the Republican National Convention pen-pricking p**********l nominee Donald Trump as a misogynist shyster running an "ugly and xenophobic campaign." What Nussbaum didn't disclose in her dispatches: she contributed $250 to Democrat Hillary Clinton in April." While $250 doesn't sound like much, it is a statement of tremendous import. In my days of reporting, my personal policy was that I would never show any kind of bias toward a candidate by contributing to the campaign or becoming too cozy with members of a campaign staff.

We can see that isn't the case in this e******n. Even Trump mentioned in the last debate that it was three to one against him, a reference to how the so-called "impartial moderators" were favoring Clinton. This comes as no surprise, however, as even a May 2015 poll by Rasmussen suggested that the majority of Americans expect biased coverage. Rasmussen reported, "When it comes to the 2016 p**********l campaign, only 23% believe most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage. Fifty-nine percent (59%) think that coverage will be slanted instead, with 36% who say most reporters will try to help Hillary Clinton during the campaign and 23% who say they will try to hurt her bid for the White House instead."

There is an old adage that covers just about anything: Follow the money. The money says that journalists favor Clinton by some 96% of the donations they give. And these are just the ones who do not see it as a conflict of interest to give to a political candidate. Those polled thought the media would be slanted, and the contributions by journalists prove it. They wouldn't be giving to Clinton if they didn't support her. That automatically biases anything they would report. As Isaiah 59:14 says, "And justice is turned back, and righteousness stands afar off: for t***h is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter." T***h, indeed, has fallen in the street, and these so-called "journalists" don't even try to hide their iniquity.

Do you believe hillary would lose by a landslide if the media reported t***hful and balanced on both hillary and Trump?