I was trying to understand your logic. That is how I understood it based on what you wrote. If I misunderstood, please correct me. As of now, I will assume that I am right and you are either incoherent or you really don't care and just want to blame the Democrats.

To respond to the points you made in this post:

(1) "So lets get it straight" paragraph: This is another poorly written paragraph. Are you saying that Obama should have done more and that his silence was a mistake? If so, I agree with you. But hoolstoptheheels explains why he didn't do it. I think it was a mistake, but understandable. But your last sentence doesn't really fit. Are you saying that Obama in fact did not know of the Russian hacking and that is why he made that comment? Or are you saying that Obama is a liar and knew about it but wanted to mislead the American people and Trump?

Regardless of your point, you misstate what Obama said. Trump was accusing Obama of rigging the election so that he couldn't win. Obama responded with the statement you kind of quote above, but Obama didn't mention hacking and it wasn't about the Russians...it was about any alleged effort his own administration was making to "throw" the election.

You will probably disagree, but I think that it is pretty clear that Obama did not talk about the Russians because he was scared of the response of the right. If he brought up the Russian efforts in support of Trump in October 2016, Trump would have responded with "I told you the whole thing is rigged!". So you are trying to play it both ways with that quote.

(2) "I do think that ANY" paragraph: This is both a strawman argument and is irrelevant. I am sure that other foreign governments have made efforts to gain access to our system. I am consistent in that we must defend against any such efforts. Just because others may do it doesn't make the Russian action any better. Seriously, is your argument here that because multiple actors take an action, we shouldn't respond to any of them?

Even assuming that other governments were also hacking, you ignore that Russia was acting in a categorically different way. They were specifically disseminating these documents at strategic times to damage the Democratic party. I know of no other allegations of other countries taking such actions. This was an information warfare strategy. Do you disagree?

(3) Your third paragraph is all over the place so I will address your many different points one-by-one.
(a) "The fact that the GRU left such an obvious trail". I have heard other people say this was obvious as well. I have doubts...it took two years for all of this to come to light with a lot of people looking into it.
(b) "resulting in essentially useless indictments". You are focusing on only its legal implications (putting the Russians in jail). You ignore the fact that it serves a signalling purpose. It puts the Russians on public notice of what we own, and that it is not acceptable. I also think your argument is inherently self-contradictory here. This seems to be asking for TOUGHER actions to be undertaken because the indictments are useless. Do you want tougher actions? Or are you actually glad that the indictments are useless?
(c) "Even though they didn't affect a single vote." I hate that this argument is made constantly and people don't call it out like the bullshit it is because it again ignores the difference between sufficient and necessary conditions. You are completely correct in a sense: the way that people vote is multi-causal and is an incredibly complex interaction of a million things. Very, very few things would be sufficient by themselves to affect voting decisions and it would be near impossible to prove it. So sure. You will never be able to prove that Russian interference was sufficient by itself to change a vote. But to think that the Russian interference was not part of the mulit-variable calculus for some people's voting decisions is asinine. Plus you know that this argument is bullshit. The right constantly says "if only Hillary had campaigned in Wisconsin (what an idiot!". Show me one voter whose vote would have been changed if she campaigned. You can't do it.

(4) Paragraph about Obama interfering with foreign elections: One of my favorite what-about-isms that is unpatriotic at its heart. This moral what-about-ism ignores the fact that it was the United States that was under attack. Here is an analogy: The United States violates state sovereignty to assassinate foreign leaders. While I think the policy is debatable, I definitely support it in some cases (Osama Bin Laden). But if another country did a commando raid in the United States to kill the Secretary of State I would freak the f out. I would not abide by it even though we may have done something similiar in another country. That is real politik and patriotic. If you can't denounce an attack on America because we may have done something similiar* to another country, you aren't an American patriot.
*I don't think the Israeli actions are equivalent but that is a side point.