You were justifying Russian corruption of American democracy, because "Americans do it all the time to other people!" I'm not putting words in your mouth. You stated that and therefore it was a "pot calling the kettle black."
That's a rather restricted perspective of what I'm saying. Although I understand that restricting my point, down to that, is quite crucial to your counter-argument, which otherwise doesn't hold much weight.
I'm talking about the inevitabilities of the global world, and the inability to control information in such a world.
Previously, it did not impact America quite as much as it affected the rest of the world, which has resided under American influence. Today, America is also residing under foreign influence, as is evident by the fact that I'm talking to you right now. That would not have happened some 20-30 years ago. I would've listened to American news, because of the extent of your influence, but you sure as hell would not have listened to Finnish news, nor would you have read about Wikileaks, and you certainly would not hear about any Russian's take on the American election.
Defense is one part of the equation. Offense is the other. Don't make it seem as if Russians are stupid, incompetent actors. They knew exactly what they were doing when they did that and evidence has been coming out for years now of them manipulation the American public. They were sending Americans a message and that message was received by some, albeit not all, of Americans. This is not "minor" stuff. Sovereignty is a big fucking deal.
Obviously they are not stupid. But I would say that, based on what I've read of their "influence", it has been fairly minor. I would regard the influence of the Gulf states or Israel as far greater, when it comes down to that. Russia doesn't have the economic muscles to back up what the Saudi Arabians or the Israelis are doing. They do have the muscles to commit themselves to the type of phishing scams that got Podesta, though. Then again, so do I.
The information, the time it is presented, by who it is presented by, and the why it was presented matters. Every single one of the variables I listed should've been assessed by the American people in order to objectively evaluate the data and choose a President according to the facts. You are obfuscating the dilemma at hand by playing the bullshit "such is politics" card.
Trump's pussy-grabbing tape also mattered. Media bringing out Trump "rape victims" also mattered. Nobody was consistently shit on, as vehemently as Donald Trump was, during the election campaign. That the Russians managed to fish out a bit of dirt on Clinton's political party, only evened up the stakes, a little bit.
There's plenty more that went into Trump's victory than the Russia narrative. But obviously, for political partisans, it's important to act as if that was the only reason he was elected, because it discredits his democratic legitimacy.
Trump, in this regard, is doomed either way, because the moment he gives even the slightest concession to the Russia narrative, the media and his political rivals will say "gotcha" and discredit his presidency as the end result of Russian influence, and nothing more. Which is why he won't do it. At the end of the day, he has got too much cunning to give his political rivals easy victories.