Are you honestly claiming that releasing the "true but stolen information" was not meant to have an effect on the election? Even though Assange stated very clearly that it was his intent? Even though the CIA and the FBI agree that that was Russia's intent as well (though disagreeing on whether/who in the Kremlin ordered the release)?
The information being true is thing that's throwing the wrench into everything here. It also is why it's pretty much resulting in spinning wheels within the context of this particular political quagmire. The earlier points still stand, if the Hillary had won, the Democrats would have smugly accepted the election outcome, and largely ignored the Russia angle, until/unless it became advantageous for some other agenda item for them. Which with Hillary, probably would have been sooner rather than later as she was taking a hard line on Russia in the first place. (Giving them more motive to "sink her politically")
It also is one of the forgotten aspects of all this. The Watergate break-in, which this is being compared to by some, was information gathering, not so much to embarrass the Democrats. Although if they'd found anything, they might have pursued that, but to find out what the democratic campaign strategy was, so they(the Nixon campaign) could counter it. The Russian hacks of previous political campaigns has likely been (historically) about trying to get a "read" on prospective Presidential Candidates, and to find if they could gain any potential leverage with what they found.
I'd be highly surprised if the United States doesn't also tend to hack into the campaign computer systems of high-level candidates in other nations as well. It's low lying fruit, and it can provide all kinds of intelligence insights for analysts to work with on building and refining profiles. I'd also be highly surprised to learn that the US and Russia are the only ones making attempts to do so. I fully expect that the U.K., Germany, China, France, and so forth are likewise attempting the same. Although China is probably the only one who is likely to be nearly as vigorous as the US and Russia are in that respect.
What was unique in this case was that the information was released. But once again, just because the Russian Government probably did obtain the same information as was released. Doesn't mean they were only ones to obtain that information, or that the Russian Government was the one who released it. As once again, WikiLeaks claims they came about their data by other (internal to the DNC) means.
That one of the leakers was evidently Russian doesn't mean it was the Russian government that released it, although it does increase the odds. It also is very possible that it was some Russian Mafia boss/member who had obtained the data through their own means(possibly by way of Russian Intelligence services), who then ordered the release.
At the very least, there's no way to ignore the Assange evidence of intent: he broadcast it to the world. I suppose you can ignore the US intelligence agencies' statements, and that their positions are based on evidence, but disputing Assange's statement as not being evidence is silly.
But if you view Assange as a reporter, or at worst, "an information clearinghouse." He still wasn't the one who initiated the breach. He just happened to be one of the means used to make the information public. Likewise, as far as manipulations go, releasing information that is verified as being true isn't much of a manipulation.
Now if he, or the Russians, had been linked to outright information forgeries, that's another matter.
But then, when you're talking about the actual "fake news" which were total fabrications/satire such as the whole abc.com.co thing. PBS tracked down the guy behind that. Seemed that guy turned out to be an American, and a Liberal at that, he claims he was simply trolling the right-wingers.
