Did you ever consider the possibility that it was a combination of those three things, in addition to many other factors? See sometimes things in reality have complexity, nuance. Just because the Russian meddling is a useful narrative for them doesn't automatically make it false. There is more than enough evidence to support it. Comparing this to the Bush administration's evidence for WMDs in Iraq is just laughably stupid. It really is. You're clearly too young to remember but back then the WMD evidence seemed flimsy and much of it was withheld from the public, and the Bush administration were the ones spearheading the effort, there wasn't a consensus among intelligence and investigative journalists that any WMD program was still active. Meanwhile with Trump-Russia we have straight up admissions of collusion and we're seeing Republicans start to change the narrative from "there was no collusion" to "collusion isn't a big deal" and you're still stuck on last month's apologia talking points "It's all a Clinton conspiracy!!!"