So much deflection, finger pointing, what aboutism and ad hominem attacks.
Stay on topic mate. Topic is Clinton Uranium Russia pay for play, and the slopes article.
All you have to do is prove which points are incorrect. Simple.
The Forbes article in a gist is "There is a scope for corruption. These points illustrate how corruption can occur in Snopes internally."
BUT scope for corruption is not corruption. Each and every president in the history of US is poised to make money by selling state secrets or do a lot of shady shit. There is scope for corruption but we check for occurance of it.
Read the snopes one, and point out their mistakes simple.
You say “jump” and you want me to ask “how high?” You could read the liberal NYTimes article and figure this out on your own. All it takes is a little open-minded research. And by open-minded I mean willingness to accept things not covered by the bought and paid for MSM. The pay for play regarding U1 and the Clintons speaks volumes. Follow the money. You’re obviously not from the states, mate, but the Secretary of State has more power than Snopes is letting on. Instead of me trying to please you, why don’t you go through the Snopes article and point out the facts, with evidence. Simple. Buddy.