The apparent bias where he released documents about the Democrats but did not release documents about the Republicans and/or Russians, having received said Democrat documents from the Russians.

Maybe it's a little more nuanced, I dunno. I can't remember all the shit I've read over the years, the freshest stuff is from the comments in these threads.

My guess is that he didn't actually have dirt on the Republicans, as one commenter suggested. Why would Russia provide that, when the supposed goal of Russia was to get their Republican man in the White House?

Then, maybe, he got some other dirt on Russia from somewhere else, but didn't release that. However there could be any number of valid reasons there. I do vaguely remember something about him saying like (my complete paraphrasing) "reporting on Russian corruption isn't of journalistic interest to me, of course Russia and Putin are corrupt."

So yeah, his "apparent biases" raise questions. That doesn't mean those questions can't have valid answers.

But that also doesn't mean the questions are invalid in and of themselves. They should be addressed openly and succintly every time, such that objective truth wins over incessant lies.

The only stupidity here is in your 3 word comment. Try harder.