Harvard University Study Reveals Huge Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias

TELL US SOMETHING WE DON’T KNOW … NEWSFLASH, THE MSM IS BIAS AND HAS AN AGENDA AGAINST TRUMP.

According to a Harvard University study, the MSM bias against President Donald Trump is huge and unprecedented. If it seems like the MSM has it out for President Trump and reports pretty much every thing he does as negative, that is because they do. Just look at the charts below and see how the MSM reports on topics in a positive or negative slant and then take a look at how Trump compares to other presidents, especially Obama.

Keep this in mind when you watch the news. They are no longer reporting it, they are slanting it to fit their liberal, left-wing agenda. The MSM was AWOL for Obama’s eight years and the endless scandals like Fast & Furious, Benghazi, IRS-gate, let alone the lies of Obamacare. But for Trump, they do not even give him a chance. The MSM is working in lockstep with the Democrat party as their propaganda arm. Remember this, especially at election time.

A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.

Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.

It found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:

In America they analyzed CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

They also took into account the BBC, the UK’s Financial Times and the German public broadcaster ARD.

Every outlet was negative more often than positive.

Only Fox News, which features some of Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters and is often given special access to the President, even came close to positivity.

Democrat Maxine Waters Admits No Trump-Russia Collusion Evidence Found (Audio)

EVEN MAXINE WATERS ADMITS THERE IS NO THERE, THERE …

There has been no one more vile and hateful for the Democrats in going after President Donald Trump than Maxine Waters. However, during a podcast with WAPO writer Jonathan Capehart even she had to admit when asked whether she had seen any evidence, either through the intelligence briefings, anything to back up any of the accusations that she has made regarding Russian-Trump collusion … Water’s answer was no. But of course since when did Democrats need evidence or facts to get in the way of their talking points?

That is why it is astonishing that the liberal MSM Washington Post opinion writer Jonathan Capehart left that significant admission made during his own podcast off his May 9 column about it. Sarcasm intended.

Newsbusters:

JONATHAN CAPEHART: I’ve got to ask you, because you leveled a whole lot of accusations out there about collusions and hacking and all of that. Have you seen anything, either through the intelligence briefings, anything to back up any of the accusations that you’ve made?

MAXINE WATERS: First of all, don’t forget that all of our intelligence agencies say, yes, they have the documentation that they did the hacking on the DNC and on some of us.

CAPEHART: But the collusion, though?

WATERS: No, we have not. That’s why investigations are so important, to drill down and to connect those dots and to get the facts. What we have is a lot of smoke that causes us to want to know more about what has happened. Why is it there are so many people around him are connected to oil? Why is it that Michael Flynn, who evidently has a great relationship with Putin, who has received payments for so-called speeches and who’s spent a lot of time in Russia and was accused of talking about sanctions, he lied about it and he got caught?

Hypocrite Democrat Senate Minority Schumer to President Trump: Comey Firing a ‘Big Mistake’ … Isn’t This the Same Guy Who Said I Have No Confidence in Comey?

REALLY CHUCKY, IT WASN’T TOO LONG AGO YOU WERE CALLING FOR COMEY’S HEAD …

It would appear that Chuck Schumer was for the firing of FBI director James Comey before he was against it. Senate Minority leader took the podium with with moral condemnation of Comey. Schumer told Trump that it was a big mistake to fire Comey. REALLY? Who does not think that if Hillary won the 2016 presidency, God forbid, that she would have not fired him. Schumer said that the “first question” for the Trump administration is why the president decided to fire Comey now. The FBI is investigating Russia’s meddling in the 2016 White House race, as well as any connections between Trump’s campaign and Moscow.

But this is not what the two face, hypocritical Schumer was saying previously about James Comey. The duplicity of Schumer reeks of nothing more than partisan politics.

The Hill:

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) says he told President Trump that his decision to fire FBI Director James Comey was a “big mistake.

“Earlier this afternoon President Trump called me and informed me he was firing Director Comey,” Schumer told reporters on Tuesday. “I told the president, ‘Mr. President, with all due respect, you are making a big mistake.’ ”

He added that Trump didn’t “really respond” to his comment.

Trump fired Comey on Tuesday based on the recommendation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein, White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters.

Trump wrote in a letter to Comey that the FBI has to restore “public trust and confidence.”

But wait, wasn’t it just last November 2016 when New York Sen. Chuck Schumer gave Comey a vote of no confidence and all but alluded to the fact that Comey would be fired once Hillary Clinton won? That is exactly what was said.

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer gave FBI Director James Comey a no-confidence vote in response to Comey’s revelation that the agency has reopened its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of state.

“I do not have confidence in him any longer,” the likely incoming leader of the Senate Democrats, told Bloomberg.

That statement raises the possibility that Democrats will try to oust Comey after the presidential election. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi hinted at the prospect Wednesday. “Maybe he’s not in the right job,” the California Democrat told CNN. “I think that we have to just get through this election and just see what the casualties are along the way.”

Comey rocked the presidential campaign when he sent a letter to lawmakers on Friday revealing that investigators had found a new batch of emails “pertinent” to the Clinton probe while conducting “an unrelated investigation.” The letter was at odds with the standard procedure of the FBI not to confirm or deny ongoing investigations, but Comey thought it was necessary because he testified before Congress that the Clinton probe was finished.

The 43 People Who Might Run Against Donald Trump in 2020 Show Just How Pathetic the Democrat Bench Really Is

ANOTHER LEGACY OF OBAMA, HE DECIMATED THE DEMOCRAT BENCH …

Remember when the Democrats and liberal MSM jokes and criticized the Republicans for having so many candidates in the GOP primaries in the run up to the 2016 Presidential election, guess what, the Democrats might have even more in 2020. As reported at The Hill, here are a potential 43 individuals who might run against President Donald Trump in 2020. Take a look at the so-called list below, are you joking? Biden and Sander, these two would be pushing 80 … never going to happen.  The list contains the likes of Al Gore, Howard Dean, Russ Feingold and Michelle Obama. Good grief, really? After 8 years of Barack Obama, the Democrats have zero, nada, no bench. What is interesting about the list is that it is void of Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.

The 2020 presidential election could feature the most crowded Democratic primary in decades, with scores of Democrats rumored as potential contenders.

The potential field could see some familiar faces as well as a mix of ambitious senators, governors and House members. But President Trump’s success as an outsider could also embolden more nontraditional candidates from the business and entertainment industries.

With no clear leader, the 2020 field should be a change from 2016, when Democrats had a small field of candidates, including front-runner Hillary Clinton.

Here are 43 possible candidates who could take on Trump in 2020:

Former Vice President Joe Biden: Biden, 74 (He missed his window, too old and already said he would not run)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), 75, (The items, socialist and Jurassic Park)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), 67,
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), 52,
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.): (A northeast liberal?)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), 56,
Facebook CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg: Zuckerberg, 32,
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.): (Never going to happen, he can thank Barack Obama)
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.):
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo: 59, (Another failed Cuaomo attempt)
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, 54,
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), 59, (Did you see him as Hillary’s VP candidate, might have been one of the wort and useless ever)
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), 65,
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), 64,
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio,  55,
Former first lady Michelle Obama Michelle Obama (never going to happen)
Former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.),  64 (Feingold couldn’t even win re-election last year in Minnesota, how is he a viable candidate?)
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean: Dean, 68, (Dean is still screaming who blew past Democrat primaries)
Former Vice President Al Gore: Gore, 69 (Sorry, his time has come and gone)

(more)

Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Provides More Gibberish, Slured Statements & Repeated Words (VIDEO)

MORE PELOSI GIBBERISH …

Welcome to the face of the Democrat resistance and obstruction in the House, maybe it is Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats that need to say goodbye to Congress. As if this was not bad enough, now San Fran Nan provides us with even more gibberish. Its time for Pelosi to retire. Her liberal policies are bad enough, but now she cannot even form a sentence or coherent idea.

Its time for change America, Pelosi and her ilk need to be voted out and fresh faces and ideas put in. At some point Congress needs to work together, it cannot continue to be a complete Democrat obstruction when the America people loudly stated in 2016 they were tired of Obama and his policies.