Was Hillary Clinton or her team behind the steele dossier
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Was this fact-check helpful?
1. Summary of the results
Based on the analyses provided, Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) were indeed behind the funding of the research that led to the Steele dossier. The evidence is clear and comes from multiple authoritative sources that confirm this connection through both investigative reporting and official regulatory actions.
The Clinton campaign and DNC paid for the opposition research through the law firm Perkins Coie [1]. This arrangement involved hiring the research firm Fusion GPS, which subsequently contracted former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to conduct the research that became known as the "Steele dossier" or "Trump-Russia dossier."
The involvement of Clinton's team and the DNC was not merely alleged but was officially confirmed through Federal Election Commission (FEC) enforcement actions. The FEC conducted a formal investigation into whether the Clinton campaign and DNC violated campaign finance laws by misreporting their spending on this research [2] [3]. This investigation concluded with both organizations agreeing to pay substantial fines.
The financial penalties were significant: the DNC was fined $105,000 while the Clinton campaign was fined $8,000, bringing the total settlement to $113,000 [2] [3]. These fines were specifically related to their failure to properly disclose the money spent on the opposition research that became the Steele dossier.
The FEC's action represents more than just a regulatory slap on the wrist - it constitutes official acknowledgment that both the Clinton campaign and DNC violated campaign finance disclosure laws in their handling of payments related to the dossier research [3]. The settlement agreement indicates that rather than contest the charges, both organizations chose to pay the penalties and resolve the matter.
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
While the analyses confirm Clinton team involvement in funding the dossier, several important contextual elements are missing from this straightforward question-and-answer format.
The timeline and chain of custody of the research is not fully explained in the provided analyses. The Steele dossier research was initially commissioned by a Republican donor during the GOP primary before being taken over by Democratic interests. This means the opposition research project predated Clinton campaign involvement, though the specific Steele-authored portions were funded by Democratic sources.
The legal and procedural aspects of opposition research are not addressed. Political campaigns routinely conduct opposition research on their opponents, and hiring external firms through law firms is a common practice designed to maintain attorney-client privilege. The violation was specifically about disclosure requirements, not the research itself.
The content and verification status of the dossier remains a separate issue from its funding. While Clinton's team funded the research, this doesn't automatically validate or invalidate the specific claims made within the dossier. Some elements have been corroborated while others remain unverified or disputed.
The broader political context surrounding the dossier's use in FISA applications and FBI investigations is not covered in these analyses. The funding question is distinct from questions about how the dossier was subsequently used by law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The original question "Was Hillary Clinton or her team behind the steele dossier" is relatively straightforward and factual, but it could potentially be misleading in its simplicity. The phrasing suggests a binary yes/no answer when the reality involves more nuanced circumstances.
The word "behind" could be interpreted as suggesting orchestration or initiation, when in fact the Clinton campaign and DNC took over funding of research that had already begun under Republican sponsorship. This semantic choice might lead readers to assume Clinton's team originated the entire project rather than continuing existing opposition research.
The question focuses solely on Democratic involvement while omitting the initial Republican funding phase, which could create an incomplete picture of the dossier's origins. This framing might serve partisan narratives that emphasize Democratic responsibility while downplaying earlier Republican involvement.
However, the question itself is not inherently biased or factually incorrect - the analyses clearly confirm that Clinton's team and the DNC were indeed "behind" the dossier in terms of funding the specific research conducted by Christopher Steele [1] [2] [3]. The FEC fines provide definitive proof of this connection, making any denial of Clinton campaign involvement factually inaccurate.