So where is the evidence that anybody did anything untoward? If somebody claims X committed a burglary, it doesn't seem too much to ask the what, when, and where in connection with it. There isn't even a "somebody did X", it's a "Russia did something, we don't know what, but they must have". We can't be expected to agree or disagree with something, when it's not possible to be told what that something is meant to be. How can we judge any supposed effect and influence of a non-specified action.
What exactly was meant to be investigated? Was there a specific thing to be investigated? If you had been asked to investigate, where would you start? There's not even an "X happened, who was responsible". There is no "X" identified.