There are a lot of Russians surrounding this administration. I think that’s worth looking into.
Oh, but wait:
Most people can put Russia on the same side of the scale as environmental and human rights issues when it comes to making a given case against Trump and it’s not even multitasking. Is that an obsession? Maybe, but with so many lines of evidence emerging that it’s not and that it’s pretty serious—even it if it were—that wouldn’t affect the inclusion with the rest of Trump’s … awkwardnesses (evil, ineptitude, fascism &c.).
But whenever someone insists it’s a distraction, and that we should avoid scrutinizing it in favor of a political red herring (such as “real reasons the Democrats lost”/hey remember the NSA, way better at this than Russia?), and that sure maybe Russia’s guilty but it’s not like they influenced an election … I become wary. That’s as good as an invitation to increase scrutiny, not lessen it. I think I will continue talking about Russia’s involvement.
Bringing up additional reasons for doing so is helpful, though.
But even if any of the things you’ve said are true (for the sake of argument), Russia didn’t play in that sandbox because it was our friend. That alone is worth looking into. That Trump benefited … is worth looking into. And that Russia obviously stands to gain in terms of policy — that could stand looking into.
And even if this is not what the Russians intended to have happen, and they expected Clinton to win but wanted something that would inhibit her effectiveness domestically because, for perhaps excellent reasons, Putin really did not like Hillary Clinton or the extension of Obama’s policies towards Russia that she represented, well, that’s worth looking into as well.