The methodology is thorough and non-partisan (that's the point). Note that the triangle's apex is literally left of center.
Not that it counters your point, but the left alignment at the top is very minor.
This chart is part of the equation, but it says nothing about which of the publications in it have more influence.
If you want a chart, look at this chart of the most common words associated with each candidate in 2016: https://www.businessinsider.com/gallup-candidate-word-clouds...
That's as clear an example of media bias in favor of the Republicans as you can wish for.
The investigation also failed to find sufficient evidence to charge anyone in the Trump administration with collusion. At this point Russiagate is thoroughly debunked.
I wouldn't call "Russiagate" in any way debunked given this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_brought_in_th...
The "unrelated" is completely false, which invalidates your entire argument.
Name an American indicted for unrelated crimes and maybe I can fill in the connection. It's mostly covered in the wiki under each of their paragraphs though.
You're hoping that people won't bother to read said Wiki, or get confused by the legalese.
Papadopoulos: Indicted for making a false statement to FBI.
Manafort and Gates: Indicted for not registering as foreign agents of Ukraine (which, you might have noticed, is sort of an enemy of Russia right now)
Flynn: Indicted for making a false statement to FBI. (Forced by lack of legal fees into pleading guilty, which later caused problems when the government tried to drop charges.)
Pinedo (Who? Exactly): Indicted for identity fraud.
van der Zwaan: Indicted for making false statements (and not an American, anyway).
Cohen: Indicted for making false statements.
Stone: Indicted for making false statements and witness tampering.
Then we have people like Carter Page, whose name was raked over the coals for years because a FBI lawyer intentionally altered evidence (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/us/politics/fbi-ig-report...) showing that far from being a Russian asset, Page had for years briefed the CIA every time he met with suspicious Russians. (Got to love how the Times describes said altering evidence as a "serious error".) You want an actual Russiagate-related indictment and guilty plea? Kevin Clinesmith, said FBI lawyer, is your man.
Manafort and Gates: If your defense is that since Ukraine is an enemy of Russia, and therefore there can't be any pro-Russian agents there, I have bridges to sell you.
Flynn: Yes, he lied about meeting Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak about setting up encrypted channels to Russia.
Cohen: Lying about business developments in Russia (money is always a nice motivator in crime).
Stone: Had contact with Russian state hackers about the DNC hacks.
Donald Jr wasn't indicted for anything, but he managed to incriminate himself all on his own volition on twitter: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/d...
The most charitable interpretation of this whole thing is that the Trump campaign were too stupid to qualify as collusion (but I think they were fully aware), but were instead pawns: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-senate/s...
Yes. And Russiagate was the belief that the Trump org colluded with the Russians. Which was debunked.
Not that citing Wikipedia means anything, but from the main article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...:
> there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates.
Without 100% rock-solid evidence, the legal complexity of trying to indict him (and him potentially pardoning himself) would have likely caused a constitutional crisis, and who knows what might have happened then. It wasn't worth the risk.
Citizen Trump would have been vulnerable to federal charges three different ways in 2018 if he hadn't been elected President.
The references in this thread so far say the opposite. If you have others that prove "We know 100% they colluded with Russian agents", add them.
Two sides of the same coin.
If Biden wins, then by spring, the leading story in the "left-leaning" media will be that we need to cut social spending to combat the deficit. The deficit miraculously stops being a story whenever a Republican is in the White House, and becomes a major priority whenever a Democrat is in the White House. Just because people in the media think that racism is bad doesn't make the media left-leaning.