No, you don't really have that straight.
First paragraph: yep, that looks about right.
Second paragraph is where it starts to fall down. "No details of the information passed (if any)" - actually, some of those details have come to light, and others will likely follow. "No further wrong-doing" - yeah, actually quite a lot of that is alleged. Just not yet at the stage of indictment, because the investigation is ongoing.
Third paragraph: you neglect to mention that the "other side" took up the idea of paying the former MI6 officer from a conservative website. When Trump looked set to become the Republican nominee, the former sponsors promptly dropped the project, and its erstwhile subcontractors looked around for a new client, and found - the DNC. Note that, assuming this account is wholly accurate, it doesn't imply that either the author of the dossier or the DNC did anything wrong.
(Nor did the original conservative website, for that matter. Researching your opponents is a totally valid thing to do. What matters is whose help you accept in doing it, and on what terms.)
Fourth paragraph: now I'm not even sure what you're talking about. By "miniscule payment", do you mean the small amounts of advertising spending that have been identified by both Facebook and Twitter as definitely paid for by Russians? Or do you include the battalion of full-time Russian trolls that have been employed to pollute virtually every online forum for the last 4-5 years? Because that spend probably dwarfs what the Clinton and Trump campaigns spent put together.
Fifth paragraph is just plain whataboutism - the fallacious argument that there's no point punishing one crime while worse things are going on. Newsflash, these things are not unconnected. Nobody is going to do anything (positive) about health care, rural poverty or the prison population as long as Trump is in the White House.
Oh wait - Harvey Weinstein? Sorry, now I know you're trolling. As you were then.