How aren't they impartial? They are obviously an interested party, but do they have an incentive to skew the facts? If so in which direction?
Not doubting you, just genuinely interested.
That being said, if they have literal screenshots of the discussions between Niemann and chess.com admitting to cheating and appealing the ban, those seem like smoking guns in addition to all this other analysis
Screenshots are easy enough to fake perfectly that if I didn't trust a party to give an honest summary of the discussion and (as in the current stake) thousands of dollars or more is at stake, then I wouldn't trust screenshots either.
Also, Hans (initially) didn't want chess.com to be able to publish the communications, so he might've avoided using gmail in favor of some method that is guaranteed not to leave a verifiable record.
this isn't to say that I don't think Niemann cheated. I think he probably did, just that chess.com is getting great publicity from all this and it would be un-shocking for them to want to string it out a bit longer. it would be poor business not to, in fact
They have been selectively releasing information about him and his one time coach for a few weeks now. While in the past they have never, not once, released any of their cheating information. Why now?
If they dont release the report they are talking about then this article is nothing.
Even now, they haven't released this publicly yet.