When he started debunking the voter fraud claims, he had a voice of objectivity. Over time, it seemed to me he just presumed bad faith on the other side (which is fair) but then started the usual "mind reading" bits where he would start claiming he knew the motives of individuals saying certain things, based upon that assumption of bad faith. When someone says "so-and-so says X, but they're doing it because of motive Y" then I don't consider that person a journalist anymore, just a commentator.