They wouldn't even write an article about anything like this if it was the other side. She did work directly with convicted terrorists, she was charged with terrorism but that charge was dropped as a plea deal with those convicted, she was convicted with helping those terrorists. And if they wrote one article because it became a big deal they wouldn't have picked the "convicted terrorist" phrase to fact check, rather they would have fact checked "was X a terrorist" or similar and it would have gotten a clear yes, everything points towards this person was a terrorist.
Choosing what statements or what formulations of statements to fact check is also a part of the bias. People just read the headline, if they read "fact check, X was not a 'convicted terrorist'", they will read that as "X was not a terrorist", the fact checkers knows this and uses that to their advantage when picking the sentence to check and the verdict that will follow.