And all of this would have precisely zero effect if Democrats managed to put up a candidate who isn't terrible enough to lose to Trump. US elections isn't the only ones they were trying to influence. In France, they went all in on Marine Le Pen, even the domestic media in Russia was singing her praises and vilifying Macron almost constantly. Guess what, she lost terribly in the end. No propaganda in the world would have lead her to win, just because the other guy was a much better candidate.
You are focusing on the crimes and not on the effects. The documents you link would detail the same crime if 100 or 100 million people were influenced. No one cared about Russian influence before Trump got elected, and now it's a post hoc explanation of how he was able to pull off a victory due to the inability of one half of the population to believe something about the other half.
> No one cared about Russian influence before Trump got elected
That's not true at all and you know it. Russian influence had been a point of discussion well before Trump's election. Heck, Hillary implied that Trump was a Russian puppet during the debates.
you compared it to the "birther" movement. now you are moving the goalposts.
Everyone cared about Russian influence before Trump was elected but the New York Times put out a huge story effectively killing the debate in October of 2016, additionally Mitch McConnell refused to bless president Obama's wish to alert the public that Russian interference was ongoing.
The Obama birther movement was borne out of an inability for Republicans to reconcile that Obama had won the election legitimately, and sought to disqualify him with anything they could find. Is the parallel more clear now? The Russia election meddling controversy, especially its effects on the election, are borne out of an inability for Democrats to reconcile that Trump legitimately won the election and are seeking to disqualify him with anything they can find.
> The Obama birther movement was borne out of an inability for Republicans to reconcile that Obama had won the election legitimately, and sought to disqualify him with anything they could find. Is the parallel more clear now?
not at all. birtherism is made up and borne of racism. Russian interference in the election is not and is borne of facts. While you are setting up a situation where these two things look the same, that only goes as far as them both being fantasies made up out of desire for them to be true. But that is not the nature of Russian election interference. There is no "parallel" between nonsense and reality. Democrats did not invent Russian election interference, it was observed in inconclusive, small ways before the election and tamped down by media reports, but then after the election it was shown to have been true and the government and media reversed its public-facing course. There would not be a federal prosecutor, the FBI, and multiple congressional committees involved over a period of months/years if this were a made up thing and you would not see Democrats talking about it. Democrats (Democrats, not fringe left-wing parties) do not engage in the type of made-up nonsense that was birtherism. The GOP should not either.
> are seeking to disqualify him with anything they can find.
The president cannot be "disqualified" from the election results, which are established history. Only impeached for his extreme conflicts of interest, ethical transgressions, conduct and unfitness for office, or preferably, removed of his partisan congressional protection in 2018 and voted out in 2020. Democrats are not calling for any kind of re-do of the election, feel free to provide a source for this of actual Democrats (not fringe left-wing parties) calling for this.
https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download
please illustrate the federal indictments that were produced to provide in depth evidence that Obama was in fact "born in Kenya".