It’s also true that nobody has ever shown the fake news spread by Russia had an appreciable effect on those voters. From The National Bureau of Economic Research (emphasis mine):
“[W]e find: (i) social media was an important but not dominant source of election news, with 14 percent of Americans calling social media their “most important” source; (ii) of the known false news stories that appeared in the three months before the election, those favoring Trump were shared a total of 30 million times on Facebook, while those favoring Clinton were shared 8 million times; (iii) the average American adult saw on the order of one or perhaps several fake news stories in the months around the election, with just over half of those who recalled seeing them believing them; and (iv) people are much more likely to believe stories that favor their preferred candidate, especially if they have ideologically segregated social media networks.”
Buzzfeed published one piece of analysis that showed the sharing of these absurd and obviously fake stories was most prevalent on hyper-partisan sites. If you believe any regular visitor to Freedom Daily (?) was going to show up for Hillary Clinton or her/his counterpart at Occupy Democrats (?) was going to flip to Donald Trump, well, there’s not much anyone can do for you.
Just look at Buzzfeed’s analysis of the top performing pieces of fake news:

Those stories weren’t influencing anyone who was open to voting for HRC. Do you really think an undecided voter was considering Clinton, saw a headline about arming ISIS and said, “Well, that’s that; no way I’m voting for her now”? It’s just like the Pizzagate nonsense. Nobody, and I mean nobody, who was considering a vote for Clinton believed that John Podesta might be implicated in pedophilia and human-trafficking based on reports from white supremacists and ultra-right-wing sites. Not for one hot second.
American voters are not as dumb as you seem to think they are, especially not swing voters and undecideds.
