Only Gulliver 2 can be attributed to Russians. It had no impact at all.

The DNC "hack" was an local insider whistle-blower (later killed - unconfirmed), the CIA and NSA info were also from inside whistle blowers. High impact.

The Macron leaks were most likely Russian, unfortunately with zero impact. One should really look what was exposed there. Then it went from there. The Russians really should have used Wikileaks as all others did. Their own attempts were all highly unsuccessful.

Doesn’t anyone remember a trove of John Podesta’s emails being dumped every time some fresh scandal about Trump breaking?

you have this completely backwards, but i dont expect you to understand that

Does a failure to influence the elections make their hacking ok?

Kind of, mostly because I don't trust the media to differentiate between rogue actors doing some port sniffing and targeted state-sponsored hacking.

For example, I'm fairly convinced most fake news is about making a quick buck, not about actually influencing the illection.

There is no doubt inside Russia, that e.g. DNC leak was a state-sponsored campaign, conducted by the guys in the same department that employed the Salisbury's killers (military intelligence). The fake news trolls all work for a private company, owned by a Putin's crony oligarch called Prigozhin, and we are way past adding "allegedly" at this point. Why are they too called "hackers" is a mistery.

How would you go about making a quick buck with fake news? Betting on Trump on the eve of the elections 4 to 1 (iirc) would be more of a gambling addiction than business plan.

> https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/50...

This guy claimed he was making $10-$30k a month. There was another piece I can't find right now about a couple of college kids doing something similar. Fake news is wildly profitable.