This was 100% apolitical. A lot of his stuff is, and his team really does their homework.
The stuff he says before the main story, tends to be quite political, but the main story, itself, is often apolitical.
This is anecdotal and not at all representative. He points out issues on both sides. It's not his fault "one side" tends to warrant that kind of scrutiny so often lately.
What is the 'other side' to people being scammed that you think he should have covered?
There's always the possibility that they weren't scammed.
They being all the people john oliver reported on?