



Well, today our democratic processes are more than just endangered. They are under full assault by another unholy alliance that can be pithily described as the 'Media-Democratic Party Complex.'



Every day we are bombarded with new revelations from Wikileaks, whose email hacks illustrate the way-beyond-cozy relationship between powerful media figures and top Democrats.



Party hacks and their lapdog media hacks claim the emails were stolen by Russians and therefore lack credibility.



In legal terms, it's the 'Fruit of the Poisonous Tree' argument. But this is not a court of law, it's the court of public opinion, and the fruit is especially rotten.



Democratic Party apparatchiks have not actually disputed the content of the emails that expose their outrageous collusion. Here are just a few examples of media elites getting caught with their hands in the Democratic cookie jar:



John Harwood is an oleaginous, far-left guy who works for both CNBC and the New York Times. Last year he immoderately moderated a Republican debate and earned recognition as perhaps the worst, most biased debate questioner in modern political history.



We now know that, in addition to his day jobs, Harwood has been moonlighting as an unofficial consultant to the Democratic Party. He sent numerous emails to Clinton campaign honcho John Podesta, advising the Clinton folks on strategy and boasting about his harsh treatment of Trump.



But while NBC is reportedly firing Billy Bush for his role in the lewd Trump tapes 11 years ago, John Harwood still has his comfy and well-paid jobs at the network and the Times.



Speaking of the New York Times, the 'paper of record' also employs a usually solid political reporter named Mark Leibovich. While not as blatantly biased as Harwood, Leibovich apparently gave the Clinton campaign veto power over what would be included in a very flattering piece he wrote about Hillary Clinton.



Speaking on The Factor this week, journalism professor Richard Hanley accused Leibovich of violating 'journalistic principles' and suggested that the New York Times might at least give the reporter a different assignment.



Then there is Democratic Party stalwart Donna Brazile. While working for CNN, she provided the Clinton campaign with the precise wording of a question that would be asked at a town hall meeting. That is simply not done by anyone employed by a news organization, even a committed partisan like Brazile.



We are not even mentioning the joined-at-the-hip relationship between the Democrats and MSNBC. That is to be expected because MSNBC is essentially an extension of the party.



But the New York Times is a different story. While the paper's editorial pages have leaned left for decades, there was a time when the news pages were basically fair. But the Times has gradually become the MSNBC of print, minus Al Sharpton.



The paper has even boasted about its Trump-hatred. The paper's media columnist Jim Rutenberg wrote this: 'If you're a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue … how the heck are you supposed to cover him?' To answer that rhetorical question, you might try covering him with a smidgen of fairness. Is that really asking too much?



Media bias was nothing new. Many reporters fell head-over-heels for Barack Obama and helped him get elected by ignoring his flaws while portraying John McCain and Mitt Romney as demons. That was documented by our pal Bernie Goldberg in his book 'A Slobbering Love Affair.'



This time is different. The media is not in love with Hillary Clinton; they are in hate with Donald Trump and will do whatever it takes to keep him out of the White House. We know that partly because nefarious hackers have shone a flashlight on some media cockroaches who are now scurrying for cover.



Expect more Wikileaks dumps in the days and weeks ahead. Expect most in the media to downplay the importance of the hacked emails. And expect the media hacks to continue blasting Donald Trump with both barrels.



This is a bizarre campaign and Donald Trump has certainly done his part to make it so. But perhaps the strangest aspect is this: The elite media's goal is not to sell more newspapers or attract more viewers. The primary mission for many reporters and editors is to stop one candidate from winning the election. Even if it means working hand-in-glove with the Democratic Party, even if it means jettisoning all ethics, that quaint stuff they learned in journalism school.



'All the News That's Fit To Print' has become something else: 'All the News That's Fit To Stop Donald J. Trump.' As the saying goes, we are indeed cursed to live in interesting times. Interesting … but sickening!