Mueller calls Russia a top threat to American democracy. He was too imprecise

That statement is too imprecise. Russian interference effort against the 2016 U.S. election are made serious not by what they achieved, but rather in their dastardly ambition. The distinction matters.

After all, judged by the measure of success, the Russians didn’t win a great victory in 2016. We lack compelling evidence that Russians moved any votes through their information warfare. Certainly there is no evidence Russians messed with voter rolls or tallies.
Instead, the evidence suggests something simpler: Trump won the presidency because he persuaded enough voters in the contested states that he offered a preferable future.

Mueller’s comments are far more credible in relevance as applied to Russia’s ambition in 2016.

Seeking to divide Americans along racial, religious, and other sectarian lines, Russia sought maximum damage to American society. Russian President Vladimir Putin regards the United States as Russia’s foremost geopolitical adversary. America is the defining obstacle to Putin’s territorial-political domination agenda in Europe, to his mercantile agenda in the Middle East, and to his broader effort to undercut U.S. international order. These are threats that require our attention.

That takes us back to the specifics of what Russia did in 2016. Whether stealing and releasing emails at moments where Russia expected maximum disruption to U.S. politics, or aiming to divide Americans, Putin’s 2016 conduct shows he would destroy American democracy if he could. He is an enemy who must be treated as such. But do we really think Putin could? Or did?

Mueller should have been more precise: Russia’s 2016 election targeting campaign is not serious for what it achieved, but for what it sought. And via that ambition, for what it tells us about Russia’s broader agenda against America.