Then honestly, what is the point? Why bring it up as manipulation of the election if you are not trying to delegitimize the election itself.
We have laws that make it illegal for foreigners to give money to campaigns. Are you saying that if they skip that step and just make material contributions to a campaign that it makes it all better?
Not sure how you could think that I was saying that. I've already been on record stating that I think contributions of time ought to have to be accounted for in the same way as contributions of money, granted it's mostly because I don't think its particularly fair to discount the value of unions paying their own members to campaign and it not counting as a cash contribution.
What I don't get is why we have campaign finance laws that can not be enforced. What's the remedy for a foreign government making a contribution? To my knowledge, we've never set aside any result in an election where such violations have been found. Hardly any politician, if any, has gone to jail over it.
That's why we don't allow foreigners to contribute to campaigns, isn't it?
Pretty much, it's also why we have laws limiting the amount US people can donate to campaigns. Now why are all those laws easily avoidable and toothless? Talk about a mixed message.
OTOH, if there is something that they did that would be so bad as to delegitimize it, I want to know about it. Wouldn't you? 
Sure. What would that look like? Cause what I see is an attempt to create an implication that its delegitimized without actually proving the case. Literally, this appears to be someone setting up a smoke machine to draw attention to what may or may not be a fire. Tough to say if there's really a fire, or if you should be concerned, after you flood the area with excess smoke.
So it truly disturbs me that Trump is trying to quell the bipartisan Senators, the CIA and the FBI from looking further into this matter.
Why? It won't and can't stop them from investigating. Exactly how are his words more or less dangerous than those from the current administration (or your own) decrying congressional investigations into Benghazi?
Honestly, if there was anyway he could prevent an investigation, I'd have your back.
What is he afraid of?
This is at least the third attempt to delegitimize his election (attack based on popular vote/electoral college, demands for recounting because hacking "could" have occurred (without evidence it did), Russians "influenced" election (though the actual links to and explanation of are in fact missing or never laid out)). He's afraid that this is effort to undermine his ability to govern. Given you guys were convinced that the Republicans have been undermining Obama from before Day 1, not getting how you wouldn't understand this potential. Whether you agree it should be done is a different issue.
He doesn't have a mandate, but then neither did Obama, yet it didn't stop the Dems from being incredibly arrogant and forcing through major legislation in the first few years of his presidency.
Or is he worried that they will uncover something that really does delegitimize his Presidency. That he won only because the Russians did something that put him over the top?
Like what. Specifically what would that be? Absent some evidence that Comey was being blackmailed to act irrationally its hard to see what would even meet this potential in theory. What exactly is this non-direct vote manipulating thing that they could have done?
Would he still want to be President knowing the Russians gave him that position?
He seems like one of the biggest narcissists in history, hard to see how he wouldn't.
Do you want him to be President if he knew he owed it all to the Russians, or Chinese, or the Saudis? Do you want a President beholden to another country.
I'm pretty confident that his ego would never let him believe that he "owes it all" to any of them. Not clear how it could be true either, based on facts in evidence. But yes if you had some kind of proof that he was being controlled (or any other President was) I'd be concerned about it, and deem that to be an incapacity to hold office. Just showing he holds a favorable opinion of a country, not so much.
Also pretty certain that I raised this exact set of issues about the donations to the Clinton foundation and you didn't friggin care about it then, even though there is an actual trail of money involved and decisions in real time on issues the same foreign powers cared about. Also, it's not like we didn't already have a Chinagate scandal with Bill in the first place either.
I see no major downside to investigating and analyzing how the Russians influenced this election, and to try to prevent it in the future, even if it delegitimizes Trump's presidency somewhat.
I see no major downside to investigating and analyzing any criminal hacking of the DNC's servers, or anyone elses, and bringing appropriate actions against those who did it. I do have an issue with trying to force this into a specific narrative primarily for the purpose of delegitimizing Trump's Presidency.
I don't have an issue with the consequences of people looking at Trump's stolen tax return page either in making their decision on who to vote for. Nothing out there where I say people shouldn't look at it. Did say the media speculation on top of it made false claims, which is true, and consistently with what I said above, this also in favor of punishing the person who released it (assuming they violated a duty of privacy). I specifically object to labeling exposes by the left as "journalism" and exposes by the right as criminal acts. One law for all.
I'm also all for taking measures to ensure we can be confident that our elections are not directly manipulated.
However, I'm not going to get outraged that a political party didn't get to manipulate voters because they got smacked in the face with their own ugly truths.