That's a very generous assessment.

If only accusations of "speaking to a Russian" were qualified by the conversation actually involving something malicious or illegal before suggesting it was improper then I'd be in much more agreement.

The fact is besides Michael Flynn who was immediately fired once people with real power found out, there hasn't been anything that has come out that was bad on the administrations part. Even the accusations against Kushner seemed to be the handy work of Flynn who was at the only meeting he had with a Russian official.

Even the level of manipulation of the election results was seemingly marginal. If leaking Clinton/Podestas/DNC's emails was the limit of the interference (assuming they even leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks), despite most Americans on the left falsely believing it involved manipulating actual votes, then I really don't think it was as bad as people seem to think.

At most the worst that can be said is that Trump/RNC's emails weren't also leaked but everyone knows Trump doesn't use email so the damage would be limited to the RNC who Trump attacked on multiple occassions.

That would be a preferred scenario to Clinton/DNC emails never being leaked IMO.

So overall I don't see the total effect of Russian manipulation having a deciding factor. Especially considering the reason he won was in poorly educated industrial swing states where things like the latest Wikileaks Podesta email isn't as big news as a Trump ralley getting people excited over populist messaging.