The Russia saga began as a purely partisan attack on Donald Trump, because the Democrats thought it would draw "moderate" Republicans (i.e. neoconservatives, nostalgic Cold warriors, etc) to their side. As we all know, it didn't work. But the Clinton crowd staked so much of their electoral strategy on it that to drop it after the election would look odd. So they've carried it on, and on, and on, and on.
Now, do I believe that the Russians did what they could to help Trump? Yes. They can't conceivably have been hoping for a Clinton victory, given that she's a rabid NATO expansionist and war hawk. This really is no different to the US intervening in the Russian presidential election in 2012, calling the protests against Putin a "positive sign for democracy", or John McCain turning up in Kiev to express US solidarity with the "Euromaidan" movement. It's certainly much less serious than America's long-standing habit of overthrowing governments it doesn't like with military force.
Besides, the "Russian hacking" of the DNC led to the release of information - namely, that the DNC tried to sabotage Sanders' campaign - that was true.
It's very telling that the Clinton wing of the Democratic party - and their supporters in the US media - think that the problem is the release of the information
rather than the acts exposed by the release of that information.
So, yeah: you don't need to be a Trump supporter to find all of this stuff tiresome.