Well, there are a couple problems with this. It's ok for countries to have preferences for how our elections go, and in Clinton vs Trump I don't think it's at all surprising that most of the world preferred Trump - Clinton was an advocate for more open international trade, for bolstering international institutions like the UN, NATO, the World Bank and IMF, etc. Meanwhile, Trump was an "America First!" isolationist, who suggested disbanding NATO, hinted he wasn't too fond of the UN either, wanted to blow up multilateral trade deals like NATO and multilateral agreements like the Paris Climate Accords, advocated banning Muslims and building a southern border wall to keep Mexicans out of the country, and even in his campaign had some pretty clear authoritarian and racist instincts. To the rest of the world, Clinton was one of them, whereas Trump was a drunken frat boy with a molotov cocktail. Of course they had preferences for Clinton. What ISN'T ok, however, is for those preferences to extend into monetary or in-kind contributions to a campaign, not because that's a violation of some international code of conduct, but because that's a violation of US campaign law. You said "Hillary received funds from Saudi Arabia." No, she didn't - the Clinton Foundation, a registered nonprofit, received funds from Saudi Arabia to help fund some of their charitable initiatives, and Hillary herself did not receive campaign contributions from the Saudis or the Clinton Foundation. As a registered charity the Foundation publishes their financials so you can verify that yourself that Hillary herself or her campaign were not the end beneficiaries of these payments. A whole lot of other people have donated to the Clinton Foundation - as a wealthy New Yorker, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump himself had made donations in the past. US campaign law is clear that no candidate can solicit or receive either money or "anything of value" from a foreign nation. If Russia had been secretly providing intel to the Trump camp, that would have fallen afoul of federal election law. If they had been doing so in return for specific governmental consideration - say, for Trump removing a condemnation of Russia for the annexation of Ukraine from the GOP platform, or for a promise to reverse Obama-era sanctions once they entered office, that escalates from campaign finance violations to probable treason, selling out US foreign policy for personal gain. So, the issue here wasn't whether foreign countries were rooting for Clinton or Trump, but rather whether that ever got to the point where it broke federal campaign finance law. And in the case of Trump, we know in a number of other situations he did do so - the Daniels and McDougal stories were bought and killed for poltical reasons so they represent in-kind campaign donations that were not disclosed. Likewise, Trump used Trump Foundation funds at campaign events on numerous occasions, which was a breach of both campaign finance law (since, again, they were not disclosed), as well as self-dealing which is illegal under NY charitable law, which is a large part of the reason the Trump Foundation is now being wound down under court supervision. There's also the matter of Trump, addressing British Parliament as a candidate, suggested to all the MPs that they go to his website and donate to his campaign, which is a stark violation of campaign law too. So, to your first point, it's ok to root, it's NOT ok to make contributions and violate US finance law, and if that were to occur that's the candidate breaking the law and not the foreign nation. Second, about Democrats and Republicans fighting... Sure, that's always going to happen. But they didn't indict 13 Russian agents because they started a fight, they indicted them for doing everything they could to inflame those fights. Look at it this way - if you light a wood fire in your fireplace, yeah, it's gonna burn.... But, if someone throws twenty gallons of gasoline in the fireplace and it explodes and burns your house down, then I think there's clearly a lot more culpability on the dude with the gasoline than on you lighting the fire in the first place, you know? Idunno. Tl;dr - We already know Trump has made repeated campaign finance law violations. It wouldn't have been out of character at all if it came out that his interactions with Russia had also fallen afoul of campaign finance law. However, Mueller failed to prove that he had beyond a reasonable doubt.