You want a good example. Fine, here's a good example:

Snopes claimed the murder of Seth Rich a DNC staffer, was not a politically motivated hit job.

It was a 'botched robbery.'

Seth Rich is the man who released Clinton's e-mails from her illegal server to wiki-leaks. Showing how the DNC collaborated to oust Bernie Sanders.

Snopes also asserts that point as False even though wiki-leaks confirmed he was the source.

In fact Wikileaks has offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to Seth's killers. Snopes inexplicably hand-waves this away.

Wikileaks released the e-mails March 16th, 2016 . Seth was murdered three months later.

To look at that information and declare 100% FALSE is sad. It should be rated as 'Unproven' or 'Mixture.'

There is a preponderance of evidence that someone who damaged Hillary was murdered for doing so. It's a compelling motivation. Snopes papered that over so it wouldn't tarnish Clinton's run against Donald.

So yes, they have a very strong anti-Trump slant. And it shows even if it has nothing to do with Trump, but merely looks others appear better as alternatives.