what evidence they have that Russia hacked the election.

Also from The Intercept:

THERE ARE SOME good reasons to believe Russians had something to do with the breaches into email accounts belonging to members of the Democratic party, which proved varyingly embarrassing or disruptive for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. But “good” doesn’t necessarily mean good enough to indict Russia’s head of state for sabotaging our democracy.

There’s a lot of evidence from the attack on the table, mostly detailing how the hack was perpetrated, and possibly the language of the perpetrators. It certainly remains plausible that Russians hacked the DNC, and remains possible that Russia itself ordered it.

HERE’S THE PUBLIC EVIDENCE RUSSIA HACKED THE DNC — IT’S NOT ENOUGH | The Intercept

I'd also like to ask the same people if they think Russia made Hillary Clinton a corrupt warmongering, technocratic crook because that seems to be what passes for "logic" these days in the so-called left.

I upvoted the "moron" in the comments section because he raised a reasonable point in a calm way, in contrast to yourself. The notion that Russia interfered in a Western election isn't absurd, and it goes way beyond shitting on or defending Hillary Clinton, who is no longer a candidate for President — your blood lust notwithstanding — and should've stopped poisoning your thinking many months ago.

The same way this isn't about Hillary Clinton, it's also not about the 2016 election. It's about future elections. You're quick to dismiss the potential that a foreign power intervened against a candidate you didn't like. Will you be so quick to dismiss potential foreign interference if it harms a candidate you do like?