Getty Images

For some time now, people have wondered if Google, the world’s largest search engine, might be a tad bit slanted when it comes to politics, favoring left-wing candidates over conservatives in how search results are displayed.

Well, it seems those suspicions may not be so far-fetched after all.

A WikiLeaks email reveals Eric Schmidt — the executive chairman of Alphabet, Google’s parent company — offered a campaign plan to Hillary Clinton’s closest aides back in 2014.

But they aren’t biased or anything, right?

According to Breitbart, “I have put together my thoughts on the campaign ideas and I have scheduled some meetings in the next few weeks for veterans of the campaign to tell me how to make these ideas better,” Schmidt wrote to Mills all the way back in 2014.

Some of Schmidt’s ideas included the assembling of a sizeable campaign structure after the 2014 midterm elections, setting up a large campaign headquarters outside of Washington, D.C., as well as the need to connect with voters using digital media and social networks.

It was also revealed this week that Eric Schmidt wanted to be the “head outside advisor” to the Clinton campaign, with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta adding that he was “ready to fund, advise, and recruit talent” for the Clinton campaign.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has also claimed that Google is “directly engaged” in the Clinton campaign.

Here’s a bit more information regarding the alleged bias of Google and their efforts to protect Hillary and help her win the presidency.

via The Daily Caller:

A psychologist researcher claims that Google’s search suggestions are biased in favor of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, and he has evidence from a study to back it up.

“It is somewhat difficult to get the Google search bar to suggest negative searches related to Mrs. Clinton or to make any Clinton-related suggestions when one types a negative search term,” writes Dr. Robert Epstein, Senior Research Psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology.

Epstein states the bias was nonetheless very evident. Google contends it avoids offering suggestions that portray people in a negative light, but the opposite seems to be true.

When typing in “hillary clinton is” the next two suggestions Google offered was “hillary clinton is winning” and “hillary clinton is awesome.”

In comparison, when typing in “hillary clinton is” into Yahoo or Bing’s search engine, the top results include “hillary clinton is a liar,” “hillary clinton is a filthy liar,” “hillary clinton is a criminal,” “hillary clinton is corrupt,” and “hillary clinton is evil” among many other negative descriptions.

We’re all aware of the fact the mainstream media is absolutely on board with a Clinton presidency, but things are getting bad when we can’t even trust search engines, which are supposed to be based on metrics and algorithms — mathematics and science — rather than being tampered by humans in order to get a favored outcome.

With the report above, combined with the new information about Schmidt actually creating a campaign plan for Hillary, how are we, the individuals who use Google, supposed to trust the company and its products?

To make a long story short, we can’t.

[This article was written by Michael Cantrell]