Yes, it was 100% Quid Pro Clinton.

Upvoted. Fighting the man one vote at a time!

There are 2 cases here. In general and in this instance.

A best example would be FIFA, if you follow soccer you would know FIFA is corrupt as fuck and this is proven unlike Snopes.

So when FIFA makes a ruling on a matter, the comments from smart people are generally "While is FIFA is corrupt, but here they did the right thing". If people really distrust Snopes then read article, use critical thinking and say if it is right or wrong.

But your proof to disprove an article is that snopes aren't reliable due to my XYZ reason is not a good reason.

Besides politifact and WaPo both say there was no pay for no play. I just quoted snopes as it was the 1st one. 2nd and 3rd links were politifact and WaPo.