Google has rigged its search suggestions to help "Hillary Clinton e"

When you start typing in search terms on most search-engine sites (like Google), the search window automatically suggests the most popular results of users' searches that start with the same string.

At least that's the theory.  Of course the big search-engine companies know they can easily help candidates or issues they like--or hurt ones they don't like--by instructing the algorithm to suppress certain results, or to only suggest damaging hits.  Multiply that by ten million hits a day and it's not hard to see the potential to swing a million votes.

To see if Google was "wiring" its search results like this, to prevent voters from finding damaging information about Hilliary Clinton--such as instructing her top aides to send beyond-top-secret information to her unsecured private email server--someone tried a simple experiment:  They typed in "hillary clinton e".

Here's what Google showed as the most popular searches:

Interesting--not a single mention of "email."  The researcher typed "Hillary clinton e" on other engines, and each suggested several with "emails."   But not Google.  Being skeptical myself, I tried it five minutes ago, with about the same result:



Again, not a single suggestion for "emails."  By contrast, here's what Bing showed as the most popular searches:



  Here's what DuckDuckGo reported as popular searches:



But before anyone thinks Google made a multimillion-dollar "in-kind contribution" to Hilliary's campaign, Google's general counsel has a very plausible explanation:  Google is accurately showing the most popular results for searches made by its users.  It's just that 95% of all Google users are Democrats, who were and are uninterested in anything having to do with something as arcane and irrelevant as Hilliary's emails.

By contrast, said counsel, "the knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, sister-marrying deplorables who were convinced there was something even remotely unusual about Ms. Clinton's perfectly legal use of a private email server probably flocked to questionable, skanky right-wing-nut search engines like Bing or Duck-something.  So it's quite reasonable that our algorithm didn't return hits for...whatever this crazy person was searching for."

So...there ya go, citizen.  According to Google they did NOT tell their search engine not to pop up information damaging to Hilliary.  Instead, any differences in the results were simply due to the fact that voters interested in learning what connection there was--if any--between Hilliary and "emails" were simply due to the fact that people concerned about that sort of thing didn't use Google!

See, citizen?  No bias, not a contribution, not nuthin'.  All perfectly innocent and legal.

Besides, you trust Google, don't you, citizen?  After all, Google has never given you the slightest reason to suspect them of being less than forthcoming before, right?

H/T Twitchy.

(And lest my liberal friends missed the obvious sarcasm, the part about "Google counsel" was sarc.)