[singingboyo]

I'm somewhat of the opinion that something that overt was unnecessary, and so while it definitely could have been, I'm not sure it was.

"<Nation X> directly manipulated votes" is one thing, and very blatantly illegal. "<Nation X> convinced a bunch of people to vote against their interests and divide the US" is another, and while unethical, dishonest, and certainly not good, it's not clear to me that it's actually illegal. Besides, if you convince them once, they'll probably stick with the flawed information and voting pattern, which is a better return on investment.

I'm not from the US though, so... maybe I'm not clear on how easy it would be for people to collaborate and cover something like that up.

[akiselev]

Maybe read the indictments?

https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

[singingboyo]

Well, nothing in there suggests direct manipulation of voting machines, which was the core point.

I think that somewhat proves my point - it's not clear to me that 'posting comments online' or 'paying news outlets to write specific stories' are or should actually be crimes. More directly stealing documents from election networks is - and was caught.