Kind of an odd time for you to be making this argument coming on the heels of Trump's recent comments and all.
Maybe I look at the words differently, but I don't see what Trump said in the same light that you do, and perhaps it's because I didn't listen to a talking head telling me what Trump said.
What I got was intelligence agencies told Trump the Russians were meddling in the election (hell everybody does that and has since forever), Trump said Putin denied it, and Trump gave a pretty non committal response that he didn't know why they would. At least he's not going to need a beer summit with Putin if evidence shows he went off the deep end and took the wrong side. To me it was the big fat parental "We'll see."
The big issue is your particular definition of "meddling" - whether it's propaganda or diddling in the voting mechanism, so it's possible for two sides to be talking different issues - even intentionally - like that's never happened before either.
In the end Trump didn't tell the intelligence agencies to take a hike like the Obama gang did, and apparently he does show up at intelligence briefings, listen, and ask intelligent questions - a first in eight years or so. If you want to blame him for forming his own opinion, then you need to look take a far broader look around the country. I can't tell you how many times as an engineer I've been involved in briefing management about problems and how to correct them, and had some fool walk away, do the wrong damn thing, and make it worse.
I'm guessing the intelligence people are right ... to a degree based on their own political agendas - like funding, empire building, and where each sits in the intelligence hierarchy. Back stabbing and climbing over others are nothing new in the intelligence ABC playground.