I think the effect that the leaks had on the election is very overstated. It seems much more plausible to me that Hillary was a bad candidate who ran a poor campaign. She played up her "experience" even while Trump received his party's nomination for not being a Washington insider. She has the charisma of a moldy onion. She had her husband meet with the Attorney General at an airport while she was being investigated by the FBI, who subsequently decided not to prosecute her. She half heartedly campaigned in several important states that ultimately decided the election. I could go on, but the point is that Hillary "hacked" her own election.

Of all the ways to influence an election, revealing true facts seems to be by far the best for the Democratic process.

Of course it would be better if hacking wasn't part of that. And you can argue that foreign influence in the election is a bad thing. But the American people really have no standing to complain about that, not with all the well known instances where the US meddling in other countries elections.

I agree that facts are good the problem is when facts are revealed very asymmetrically. Let's pretend you have two candidates, one where you really only know about him from his voting record and public statements and the other where you know everything that they and their associates have ever done. My guess is that the fist candidate will be more likely to win. I think that if that asymmetry is too prevalent it gives an unfair advantage to one side and in my view that weakens the democracy.

No, the OP is correct about it. The narrative being presented is muddying the issue. They're not out there to convince you, me, or most of HN, who I'm assuming are literate or informed individuals. They're out there trying to convince the low-information voter, cast doubt, and generally give them enough mental-ammo to convince themselves that their preferred vote is the "right" one objectively.