So you are sayibg the original article that is basically saying "high speaking fees are normal, Clinton is normal, don't worry about it" is non-partisan; but providing a counter-argument that seems to show a conflict of interest is partisan?
The original article is non-partisan in its argument, the high speaking fees being normal applies equally to all parties, all famous people.
The OP I was responding to could be seen as making a non-partisan argument, however the focus was on Clinton rather than Trump and Clinton. So I interpreted is as partisan (and got a fact wrong about her new book). Tomahawk has responded since that it was not intended as partisan, and I'll take his/her word for it.
Quoting Politifact isn't a rebuttal. Also, "quid pro quo" as used by politicians who peddle their influence is basically unprovable. It's a great standard for them to make mainstream, but unfortunately fails to accurately describe all the ways influence peddling and bribery schemes work.
There is no proof of quid pro quo in that Russia uranium deal: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/...
Also, Clinton sold a lot more than 3000 copies that first week; more like 85000 (still not as good as her prior best sellers):
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/18/what-do-hil...