Did I say that not covering Trump meant they should also ignore any wrongdoing by the Clintons? No, I did not.
It was heavily implicit in your post that he could not credibly report on Clinton matters unless he was also reporting on Trump matters.
That’s intellectually fallacious, prima facie. Reporting on any of these individuals is a full-time job, if you’re doing so in the investigative sense. So, I do not discount anti-Clinton reporting simple because Trump is not also a subject of the report, nor would I discount anti Trump reporting because Clinton is not also a subject.
I just said that it’s absurd to claim non-partisanship
I’d have to disagree. There is plenty of anti-Clinton reporting from the left (Sanders/Greens/antiwar people) and from the right. Being “anti-Clinton” does not put you firmly on the right or the left, although it is most often attributed to those on the right.
At least you’re honest in your bias, unlike this guy. Congrats for that.
Pfft. If you think there’s an unbiased political commentator, I have a bridge to sell you.