The dishonesty in your comment, at least partly, is in conflating Russian *sources* largely telling the truth, in a search for truth, with Russian *agents* lying and propagandizing, working for a Putin project to interfere in our elections.
In other words, when an investigator learns about the Putin efforts from a Russian source and alerts US authorities, that's a good thing. When Putin's agents spread lies to millions of Americans, that's a bad thing. It's unfortunate you can't tell the two apart.
You did not condemn the Russians who interfered in our elections at Putin's direction. You condemned the Russians who interfered by telling the truth, which you call lies.
Raw intelligence doesn't always contain 100% truth. That doesn't mean that if some of it was wrong, that it wasn't vetted, that Hillary repeated it and spread it. That's what Republicans did, knowingly, with lies, and that's what Putin's attacks did, which I haven't seen one Republican condemn. To be clear, the issue isn't that the Russian info was all lies - even if it was true information, it's still a problem for a foreign power to offer help of value to a candidate.