> Russians pretending to be Americans

While I don't claim to have researched this issue in depth and it's worth taking this with a pinch of salt, I'm yet to see any evidence of this, nor has it been a part of most of the leftist reporting I've seen. The only instance I've heard of where a specific Twitter account has been accused of being a Russian misrepresenting their nationality was ian56789, and that accusation was false, as he demonstrated by going on Sky News and giving an interview.

An example of the sort of thing I mean: https://www.ft.com/content/333fe6bc-c1ea-11e6-81c2-f57d90f67... (in this case Macedonians, not Russians, but where did the money come from?)

Paywalled.

Similar story from Wired? https://www.wired.com/2017/02/veles-macedonia-fake-news/

What counts as "misrepresenting their nationality"? I'm sure russian bots aren't going around saying "I, John Smith, an American citizen, think that Hiliary is bad". It's probably going to be some user named @johnsmith2009 saying "Hilary is bad".

If your name is Misha Ivanovich, you're working out of Moscow, and you've got an American flag avatar, post mostly about US politics, and go by the name @johnsmith2009 on Twitter, I'd say it's clear you're doing some deliberate misrepresentation.

I'm still really unconvinced by this whole "Russians influenced the election" narrative. I doubt a few articles written in poor English about how Hillary runs pedophile sex rings would have had a greater influence on the electorate than Hillary being actively endorsed by nearly every respectable establishment media outlet.

People really wanted to hate Hillary, and to some extent this was because she was endorsed so heavily by the media. So they latched onto every little thing that could be used against her.

There's really two parts to the populist wave: "establishment politics isn't delivering what we need" and "we must turn to what seems like a Man of the People". The first has some extremely valid points, the second has (mostly) been a total disaster.