1) The Obama administration has said that retaliation will be in some part covert, so there's strong reasons to believe the publicized reaction is only the tip of the iceberg

2) If Russia hacked US elections in a material way (i.e. stuffing electronic ballots), we probably wouldn't know anyway. President Trump is much better for the United States than acknowledging that Russia can elect whoever they want.

What do you mean by the second point? I am confused about

>President Trump is much better for the United States than acknowledging that Russia can elect whoever they want.

Let's say Obama has airtight proof that Putin single-handedly elected Trump. What would be more damaging to the US: publicly admitting that foreign states have control of our elections (which could very reasonably start a large-scale revolt), or allowing it to happen while secrectly taking actions to prevent that from happening again?

But now that everyone talks about it, work should be done on the internal aspect on this: Investigation on voting mechanisms, coming up with a way to make this integral part of democracy safe. You could say "No, Russia didn't do anything, but while we're at it we have noticed some potential weaknesses in our infrastructure".

It's because there's no proof that Russia did any of this and what was done wasn't "hacking the election". It was a leak of factual information. I think a lot of people (myself included) were happy to have the information made public. I'd also be happy if such details about the RNC were made public, but they weren't. I see this more as whistleblowing than anything else and I definitely wouldn't qualify it as "hacking" especially not of "the election".