Fact check: Did Hillary pay for the fake Russia Trump hoax?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, there is substantial evidence that Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee financially supported opposition research that became central to Russia-Trump allegations. The Clinton campaign and DNC paid for opposition research through Fusion GPS, which led to the creation of the Steele dossier containing allegations about Trump's ties to Russia ^[1]. This was confirmed when both organizations agreed to pay $113,000 to settle a Federal Election Commission investigation into whether they misreported spending on this research ^[2].

Newly declassified documents from the Durham report reveal what sources describe as a Clinton campaign plan to falsely tie Donald Trump to Russia ^{[3] [4]}. According to these analyses, the documents suggest that Hillary Clinton approved a plan to smear Donald Trump by magnifying scandals tied to Russian special services intrusion ^[4]. The FBI allegedly used the Steele Dossier, described as "a Clinton campaign creation," to obtain FISA warrants on Carter Page ^[3].

Additionally, a whistleblower's account describes manipulation of intelligence behind the Russia collusion allegations, with claims that the Obama administration knowingly promoted falsehoods about Russia helping Trump get elected in 2016 ^[5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question frames the Russia investigation as definitively "fake" and a "hoax," but the analyses reveal more nuanced perspectives. One source fact-checks various claims related to the Russia investigation, including examining whether the Russia investigation itself was actually a hoax ^[6]. This suggests there are legitimate questions about the characterization of the entire investigation as fabricated.

The analyses don't provide the Democratic Party's or Clinton campaign's official response to these allegations, nor do they include perspectives from those who believe the Russia investigation uncovered legitimate concerns about foreign interference. Intelligence community officials, Democratic politicians, and media organizations who supported the investigation's legitimacy would likely dispute the characterization of it as entirely fabricated.

Law enforcement officials and career intelligence professionals involved in the investigation might argue they were following legitimate leads based on available intelligence, regardless of the political origins of some source material.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains several problematic assumptions. It presupposes that the entire Russia investigation was "fake" without acknowledging that multiple investigations, including by Republican-led committees, found evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election, even if they disagreed about coordination with the Trump campaign.

The phrasing "Hillary pay for the fake Russia Trump hoax" oversimplifies a complex situation. While the analyses confirm Clinton's campaign paid for opposition research that became part of the investigation's foundation ^{[1] [2]}, this doesn't necessarily mean she personally "paid for" the entire investigation or that all aspects of Russian interference concerns were fabricated.

The question also conflates different elements: Russian interference in the election (which intelligence agencies confirmed occurred), the Steele dossier (which was Clinton campaign-funded opposition research), and the broader FBI investigation (which had multiple origins and components). Political figures like Senator Chuck Grassley and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt benefit from promoting the narrative that the entire Russia investigation was a Clinton-orchestrated hoax ^{[3] [4]}, as this supports their political positioning against Democratic opponents.