Words mean things, it has been said

As I recall back in the days when I listened regularly to the Limbaugh show, some conservatives advocated more precision in the use of language.  So, when I see that there is a rather loose use of the language, the old antenna goes up.

Why use this word "interfere" with respect to Russia, and not precisely define the word?  Seems to me that to interfere with the 2016 election entails a good deal more active work than what is being discussed.  Is CTH dropping the ball?  What do they mean when they use this word "interfere"?

For example, consider this a write-up of yesterday's Sunday shows.  CTH is letting this use of the word go by without giving a clear definition of what it means.  A quote:

That January reference was the infamous 17 agencies report, from CIA (Brennan), DNI (Clapper), FBI (Comey) and NSA (Rogers), all who had confidence -except Rogers-  according to the report, that Russia was attempting to interfere in the 2016 election.

While true that this is only a quote, it is still allowing this word to enter the public domain without challenge.

Okay, so what does the word "interfere" mean?  Hacking the DNC servers?  Then, giving those emails to Wikileaks so that they could be used against the Clinton campaign?  What else are we talking about here, but that?

So, the Mueller investigation is about the alleged hacking of the DNC servers?  Seems to me that this is an awful lot of bother about something that should have been settled a long time ago.  Hacking may be the crime everybody is talking about, but did that actually occur?  This "hacking" has not been established as a crime that was committed.  Indeed, it is challenged elsewhere that no hacking took place at all.  Instead, it was a leak.

It has long been my assertion that this Special Counsel investigation has never been justified by the actual breaking of any law.  Until that is established, there shouldn't be any SC at all.  It means that Mueller should not have been hired, and unless he is actually establishing that the law was violated, it should be demanded that he do so.  If he can't or won't do that, then he should be fired.

If all they are talking about is influence, as opposed to interference, then you have no crime.  There is no anti-collusion statute that I have heard of.

Mueller is chasing shadows, and ignoring the real issue here.  The purpose of his actions may be the result of incompetence or corruption.  Either way, it is not good.  If it is incompetence, then he is looking in the wrong places.  If it is corruption, then it is not truth that he is seeking, but the opposite.

Update:

Could this be the root of it all?  An alleged violation of the Logan Act?  Nobody has ever been convicted of violating that law.  Besides, the spying on Trump began before the alleged violation took place.