>>He said "Moscow had sought to lure Americans down "a treasonous path." whether or not they succeeded is beside the point in terms of whether or not they meddled with the election.

He said he was "concerned" about that. Meaning unsure, but worried/suspicious. Worthy of a closer look. He followed up with the usual "I know these Russkies and that's the sort of thing they do" which helps explain his thinking but also is not proof of anything. He also said he still had "unresolved questions" on the topic when he stood down. IOW it's simply not the slam dunk you've turned it into.

>>Fact is they meddled, and the fact you don't believe can be attributed to them having some success with that, and possibly lured your vote.

Even Trump conceded after the election (and presumably armed with info not visible to us) that the Russians probably hacked the DNC. Since then the fingerprints identified as Russian by a third party firm paid by the DNC (not the FBI that was denied access to the server) have been debunked by another third party expert, and Wikileaks has released info showing that US Agencies not only used themselves but had released into the wild, UMBRAGE techniques for laying fingerprint tracks pointing to others, including specifically Russia. See https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/ . Hopefully one or all three investigations can provide better clarity- unless the hacked server is since destroyed with hammers and bitbleach, of course.

Meanwhile, here's quite a good (though dated) summary: https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/

and an opinion piece by ex-agency dudes: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/06/the-dubious-case-on-russian-hacking/