It’s not evidence of criminality, of course, but it’s evidence of overall bias. So again, the fact that he also disliked Clinton is irrelevant. Bottom line was that he strongly preferred that she get elected (since the only alternative was Trump).
What do we know about those that strongly preferred that Trump get elected? Should they get the same level of scrutiny?
And?
That’s it. It means that the fact that Strzok disliked Clinton can’t be used as a proof that he didn’t have bias, and an argument that the investigation resulted from bias would have to rest on other grounds. My post was in response to a poster - you - claiming that the fact that Strzok disliked Clinton does have a major bearing on this issue, and I disagreed with that specific point.
[As it happens, I myself earlier authored an OP on this MB arguing that Strzok’s bias was no big deal. I think the latest revelation that Strzok said “we will stop him” changes the equation somewhat, but if the IG says his bias didn’t impact the Clinton issue, then that’s good enough for me. (The Trump investigation is another matter, but the IG is going to investigate that too, and I can wait for his report on that matter too.)]