Hillary Clinton's supporters love to complain that the press torpedoed her White House ambitions 2016.

What utter nonsense.

First, as noted by my colleague Eddie Scarry, if Clinton lost the 2016 election because of negative press coverage, then how did Donald Trump win? He had 15 solid months of bad press. No one – left, center or right – can argue the press went easy on the Queens businessman. If elections were determined by which candidate had the rosier press coverage, then we'd be saying "Madam President" today.

Secondly, when it came to which candidate the press obviously preferred in 2016, Clinton was the hands-down winner. This isn't opinion or conjecture. This is a matter of record!

By Nov. 6, 2016, just two days before Election Day, an astonishing 57 newspapers had already endorsed Clinton for president. Trump, on the other hand, had exactly two ( t-w-o) endorsements.

As if that weren't impressive enough, Clinton also overshadowed Trump when it came to political donations from the media. The margin wasn't even close.

Through August of last year, members of all classes of media, including journalists, editors, news anchors, etc., had donated roughly $382,000 to Clinton's election efforts, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis released in October 2016.

In contrast, Trump had netted only about $14,000 in donations from members of the press.

Putting things more simply, a whopping 96 percent of all journalism-related donations went to Clinton, according to the report. Trump got the scraps.

We don't bring any of this up to twist the knife or pour salt in not-yet-healed wounds. Rather, this is a direct response to Clinton superfan Peter Daou, who launched a supposed fact-checking website this weekend.

The site itself, Verrit, is ... whatever. Clinton fans need something to do.

The thing that begs for a response here is when he tweeted this weekend, "I founded [Verrit] because Hillary Clinton's voters – an inspiringly diverse coalition – are unrepresented in the media."

Unrepresented? There are certainly specific demographic issues that newsrooms are struggling to address, but the idea that the Clinton coalition didn't get a fair shake last year is preposterous. The industry almost entirely comprises people who saw her as the much better option for president.

Clinton got their endorsements, their money and (likely) their votes. What more does Daou want?