Once more, you're oscillating between the two questions of 'What happenned, what is happening?' and 'What is the historical and philosophical context?' I've already commented on the latter, you know my opinion, and the weaknesses of your own. I won't bandy any more in scorecarding and whataboutism. My only interest here is underlining "what happened".

Since you raised some of the more recent developments in the hacking investigtion, we can discuss that: efforts to hack or modify the electoral infrastructure, and their Russian origin.

First, the late report is a Senate summary based on the reports of numerous state governments, agencies of the federal government, and independent and contracted investigators. This isn't something a Senate subcommittee extrapolated from original research.

The Committee’s assessments, as well as the assessments of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), are based on
self-reporting by the states. DHS has been clear in its representations to the Committee
that the Department did not have perfect insight into these cyber activities. It is possible
that more states were attacked, but the activity was not detected. In light of the technical
challenges associated with cyber forensic analysis, it is also possible that states may have
overlooked some indicators of compromise.
Second, reports on this (I mean about cyber intrusions, not Congressional reports specifically) have been coming out since 2016, accumulating and painting a more profound and disturbing picture of the scope of Russian activities all the time. For example, in mid-2017 various CIA and NSA documents were leaked that provided details on one branch of the attempts to penetrate voting systems in the states, and the responsibility of the GRU in it. (Putin's response was to suggest that independent Russian "patriots" may have conducted cyber operations against the US after all.) Trump and his team were even briefed on the state of investigations before he was inaugurated. This briefing included text, audio, primary source testimony, and corroborating work done by multiple Western governments.

Third, it is already known that Russia has a demonstrated desire and a stated and demonstrated ability to engage in various forms of cyber operations against the United States (among others). Putin finally publicly admitted in the Helsinki summit that "[he] wanted Trump to win." The email hacks, the infrastructure hacks, and the microtargeting/information-war were all distinct but interrelated covert activities, and mutually corroborating. It is far less parsimonious to believe that multiple actors, not cooperating but working in tandem toward the same objective, would engage in discrete and non-overlapping fields of intervention. Mueller's indictments do not (yet) elucidate the state electoral hacks, but I recommend you look through Mueller's Russian indictments as they contain a fair amount of detail in describing and analyzing the process of the information ops and the email hacks, and their Russian provenance.

Fourth, someone is already known to be targeting the 2018 election: Microsoft recently announced spearphishing attempts against several Democratic candidates from domains that had previously been associated with the 2016 operation.

Now here's homework for you. In 2013, the Obama Administration admitted that the United States was directly involved in overthrowing Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. Between 1953 and 2013, what evidence was there that the US had any part in this episode, that it wasn't the work of a guy sitting at their desk who weighs 400 lbs?