After you hack through the loaded terms and all-caps slurs with a machete, there were some fact-based data points that were interesting. Have to say, I found this particular piece unconvincing, and isn't what I'd call 'a pretty good picture of Trump's career' regardless of its accuracy or inaccuracy.
Wouldn't 'a pretty good picture of Trump's career' include both positive and negative things?
Would a pretty good picture of Hillary Clinton's career include positive and negative things? Not sure how you would react to an analogous hit piece on Hillary, Diderot.
I'd like to hear a Jamesian-style, unemotional, delineation of Trump's ethical decisions on both sides of the balance ledger. Not sure that guy would have been voir dire'd in court as a suitable witness. ;- )
But then, that's part of the problem. It's nearly impossible to find anybody who can bring themselves to be objective about either Trump or Clinton.