Well he's not factually incorrect in saying people on both sides had some bad intentions. Both sides did show up brandishing weapons. Both sides did commit unprovoked violence. Of course, that's not equivocating what the driver of the car did, he was objectively the worst offender, having committed a domestic terrorist attack with intent to kill.

However, ANTIFA did randomly attack some reporter from a local station, leaving him hospitalized with stitches in his head. The KKK crowd attacked some black guy going back to his car, leaving him hospitalized with stitches in his head.

But I think he's incorrect in saying not all of those who showed up were white supremacists/KKK. People who didn't want to be associated with that would have left or separated themselves. Given the open displays of Nazi glorification, it's safe and accurate to assume that crowd was exclusively composed of a certain type of people. I don't think the same can be said about the counter protesters though, which likely drew on a more diverse crowd of people (ie, just run of the mill anti-racists, anti-nazi's, with no bad intentions).

So if we're going to condemn "many sides," we'll need to be specific. First and foremost, the neo-nazi's, and secondly, the violent communists who came looking for a fight, and attacked an innocent reporter.

I believe both deserve specific condemnation. We don't want to normalize politically motivated violence. This is how political culture devolves, and extremists begin dominating the narratives.