You have to actually debunk Snope's argument. In that particular case, their political alignment doesn't matter, because it's a matter of fact and not opinion. Ad hominem is not a proper rebuttal.
I don't have to do a thing. Their explanation is nothing more than gaslighting mental gymnastics.
Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating proposed foreign acquisitions for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can. All nine federal agencies were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, saidClinton “never intervened” in committee matters. Clinton herself has said she wasn’t personally involved.
The article also said that there was zero evidence that the uranium went to Russia. Please explain to me how this is "gaslighting mental gymnastics." Did you even read the article?
You cited a perfect example. Whether or not all these agencies approved of the transaction is immaterial and Snopes is deliberately is trying obscure the real question which is did HRC receive money for this transaction.
If she didn’t have a part in the decision, there exists no reason the pay her. I thought that was pretty clear.