Fact check: Is there evidence that Hilary Clinton paid for the Steel dossier

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, there is clear evidence that Hillary Clinton's campaign paid for the Steele dossier. Multiple sources confirm that Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee funded the opposition research that led to the creation of the Steele dossier ^{[1] [2]}. The evidence is particularly strong given that both organizations agreed to pay $113,000 to settle a Federal Election Commission investigation into whether they violated campaign finance law by misreporting this spending ^[2].

The Clinton campaign and DNC misreported the spending as 'legal services' instead of opposition research ^[1], which led to the FEC fine. This demonstrates not only that the payment occurred, but that there was an attempt to obscure the true nature of the expenditure.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question focuses narrowly on payment but omits several crucial contextual elements:

• The payment structure was indirect - the Clinton campaign and DNC paid through intermediaries rather than directly to Christopher Steele, which may explain why some sources note the dossier was "funded by the Clinton campaign" without providing direct evidence of personal payment by Hillary Clinton herself ^{[3] [4]}.
• The dossier's subsequent use by government agencies - the analyses reveal that the Obama Administration used the dossier in creating the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment ^[3], raising questions about the intersection between opposition research and official intelligence work.
• Broader allegations of strategic coordination - one source suggests that Hillary Clinton approved a broader plan to link Donald Trump to Russian interference, which may have involved the dossier's creation as part of a larger strategy to "smear" Trump ^[5].
• The legal and regulatory response - the FEC investigation and subsequent fine demonstrate that election finance regulators found the reporting of these payments problematic, regardless of the underlying research's validity.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself appears relatively neutral, simply asking for evidence. However, the framing could potentially:

• Oversimplify the payment structure by focusing on Hillary Clinton personally rather than her campaign organization, which might lead to confusion about direct versus indirect funding.
• Lack temporal context about when this information became publicly known and confirmed through official channels like the FEC investigation.

The question does not contain obvious misinformation, but those seeking to either defend or attack Clinton could benefit from emphasizing different aspects of this evidence - Clinton's opponents would benefit from highlighting the confirmed payments and misreporting, while Clinton's supporters might benefit from emphasizing the indirect nature of the payments and questioning the dossier's ultimate impact on the 2016 election.