Simon, I'm finding this a difficult conversation to have with you because you will make statements like "large numbers of votes were cast by illegal immigrants" without a shred of evidence.
The difference is that there are actual documented cases of illegals voting (i.e. real evidence of a crime) and anecdotal evidence from people involved in the election process that it was more than a few isolated cases.
When it comes to Russian hacking, sure, they might have attempted it, but did they do it? Until and unless there is evidence that they did, it's simply an empty claim so very different.
Why is the left so bothered about Russian interference but doesn't seem at all interested in other voting irregularities?
But, after multiple reports from numerous intelligence agencies and independent companies, you still refuses to acknowledge that the Russian's sought to influence the election. I'm not sure where this disparity for your standards of evidence is arising.
And there we have it, the typical flip-flop. When the claim of direct hacking can't be substantiated you jump to the flimsier "sought to influence the election" which every country does, all the time.
Do you actually understand that they are different things?
One happened, one didn't ... unless evidence is uncovered that it did and it seems all the evidence so far is that it didn't.