I am going to challenge a base assumption on motive related to a recently given testimony of the FBI found in the WaPo 12/11:
The FBI is not sold on the idea that Russia had a particular aim in its meddling. “There’s no question that [the Russians’] efforts went one way, but it’s not clear that they have a specific goal or mix of related goals,” said one U.S. official.
You can contrast the FBI's and CIA's positions, the CIA's is more definitive on the Russian's involvement, in the same article.
Their motive may have been just to see if it was possible and what the fallout would be like, or maybe they, or just Putin, greatly dislikes Clinton. The last point is getting more and more traction, from The Hill
Michael McFaul, who served as the U.S. ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014, said he thinks Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to help Donald Trump win the presidency to hurt Clinton.
“Let’s remember that Vladimir Putin thinks [Clinton] interfered in his election — the parliamentary election in December 2011 — and has said as much publicly, and I’ve heard him talk about it privately,” McFaul said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
In one sense, the leaks against Democrats work against the interests of Russia, and interests they put money behind. It's recently been revealed, and confirmed by Hillary Clinton no less at a fund raiser this year, that Russian influences are paying huge sums of money in America and in Eastern European countries to environmental groups like the Sierra Club through a shell group to rally lobbying against fracking and other petroleum exploration and mining concerns, to better prop up Russia's oil supply. These groups universally and without exception for at least the last decade in the US only donate to Democrats or those that caucus with them. Republicans, of course, are for developing the energy infrastructure and furthering supplies of domestic energy sources. link link
As the position above illustrates, Russia has historically and ideologically found cover and common ground with Democrats in the US. The Russians enthusiastically welcomed Barack Obama’s election in 2008, and the then-head of that country’s Communist Party explained why the Russians don’t like Republicans Pravda:
All Republican presidents have always defended national interests, ignoring the interests of other countries of the world. The new US president [Obama] cannot but understand that it is impossible to seek and find answers to many global issues without the participation of such a great country as Russia.
From John Hinderacker:
The one thing we know for sure about Donald Trump is that he is pro-America–in the Russians’ eyes, a typical Republican. Moreover, why would the Russians think that exposing emails from the likes of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and John Podesta would cause Trump to win the election? American newspapers like the Washington Post were saying that Hillary had the election virtually wrapped up. It would be embarrassing if Vladimir Putin has more insight into the U.S. electorate than such organs as the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Be that as it may, Donald Trump’s assessment of this kerfuffle is correct: it is just another silly attempt by the Democrats to excuse the fact that they lost the election. The Wikileaks revelations, while entertaining and often interesting, were inside baseball. The voters who swung Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin into the GOP column didn’t do so because they were outraged by John Podesta’s emails, or by the fact that the DNC conspired against Bernie Sanders. For the Democrats to claim otherwise is delusional.