Yeah, no, this is not unbiased. First, it does not note that numerous investigations by the government, including under Trump, concluded that Clinton did nothi

Yeah, no, this is not unbiased. First, it does not note that numerous investigations by the government, including under Trump, concluded that Clinton did nothing worth charging. Second, some of the anti Clinton evidence is based on unnamed sources, which is speculative at best. It is not comparable to a public indictment of Trump with the evidence that has been released so far. It is possible that the evidence will turn out to be wrong or fabricated but the best we can say for trump at the moment is that it's too early to say for sure. If the evidence is true then he is way more culpable. The article throws in a Slick Willie reference to try to further tilt the needle towards Clinton but mentions none of the myriad legal troubles of Trump. This article is trying its darndest to come to a predetermined conclusion.