Kremlin on Sanctions Due to a $500,000 Payment to Bill? (Snopes can't deny it)

CLAIM That Hillary Clinton opposed sanctions against Russia because of speaking fees her husband received from a Russian bank, and that the Clinton campaign used undue influence to kill a Bloomberg story about the incident.

RATING UNPROVEN ORIGIN On 18 July 2017, Fox News published a story reporting that former Secretary of State and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had “sided” with Russia against a U.S. sanctions law known as the Magnitsky Act because her husband, former President Bill Clinton, received $500,000 in speaking fees in 2010 from a Russian investment bank.

The story, authored by the same Fox reporter who wrote a debunked and retracted May 2017 story claiming the Clintons were behind a murder conspiracy that took the life of DNC staffer Seth Rich, relies only on innuendo and a portion of a 2015 email written by a Clinton campaign aide that was published by document-dumping site WikiLeaks.

This sole piece of supposed evidence from the 21 May 2015 email was one sentence in an evening run-down of news stories in the works about then-candidate Clinton. Former communications staffer Jesse Lehrich sent the email to Clinton’s rapid response team:

In law, circumstantial evidence is evidence other than direct evidence, and consists of a set of facts from which inferences may be drawn. The inferences must be reasonable, that is, a logical conclusion which is permitted by common knowledge and experience. Example; if there is snow on the ground in the morning that wasn’t there the night before, it can be reasonably inferred that it snowed during the night. Direct evidence would be one having actually seen it snowing. The circumstances must be more than simply linking contemporaneous events as one having caused the other, such as post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which is a fallacy. The circumstances which negate the post hoc fallacy in the subject news story about the Clintons are the same as those that prohibit conduct which creates the appearance of impropriety-the inference that can be drawn is both reasonable and logical. The appearance is prohibited because direct evidence is usually lacking and difficult to obtain but the conclusion flows naturally. To discount it as a mere innuendo is an intellectual failure.

Hillary did so much pay to play that it is disgusting that Obamas DOJ did nothing, and worse that the media turned a blind eye.

She was in bed with Russia, and did Uranium One.WTF.

Look at the crap they pulled in Haiti.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.