in fact Clinton's fees went up as it became clear that his wife was the front runner for 2008 (actually started before then - the first $500,000 fee was in 2003).
There is no evidence that domestic or foreign governments and companies did so to gain illegal influence nor that any decision WAS influenced. Ergo it is an accusation without evidence, and the pushers of the theory ignore tat his fees started going up prior to her serving as Sec of State.
But more relevantly to my comments, the hokie interjected into this discussion an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. Ergo... a strawman