> Just because the hack was linked to Russia and they have been at loggerheads with the US, you should not be using that sentiment to discredit the actual information.

Correction, Russia is in hostilities with the United States, and is attempting to weaken it's international standing and weaken it's treaties (primarily NATO). It's currently headed by a dictator fond of murdering journalists and dissidents, jailing and inciting violence against sexual minorities, nationalizing multi-billion dollar corporations for his personal profit, and literally (as in the actual definitive use) rigging elections - in addition to invading his neighbors. There is no honest defense of Putin as a leader, and there is no honest defense of why he should have a say in who America elects as it's next president. I'd suggest that his involvement in the US electoral process is poisonous, and if any US citizens are found to have conspired in this effort with him, that should be considered treason.

And again, you seem to be intentionally mis-parsing my words. As I've now said twice, Russian intelligence intentionally leaks truthful information so that it may later spread deceitful propaganda. I've never argued that American voters aren't entitled to know truthful disclosures about it's electoral process. But again, as I've said twice, Putin has a track record of using this credibility to later spread lies. With the understanding that Putin intentionally spreads lies, it becomes abundantly clear as to why America should treat everything he leaks with a healthy dose of skepticism.

With regards to the 'everyone else is doing it' what-aboutism, I'll pass. I personally find it a tiring and intellectually lazy argument, and in any case it's irrelevant.

>I don't know what you call 'actual corruption' but discriminating against another candidate, not providing level playing ground and actively harming another candidate's campaign, DNC chair stepping down because of corruption and immediately getting hired in Clinton campaign all look pretty shady to me. Illegal, maybe not but definitely corrupt.

To be clear, 'actual corruption' is orchestrating the submission of fraudulent ballots (ballot-box stuffing), fraudulently disqualifying the ballots of eligible voters, or otherwise attempting to alter the outcomes of American votes.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with American politics, but otherwise these 'dirty tricks' are actually par the course - since forever, really. A candidate who is unable to overcome them probably isn't qualified to become president by dint of their amateurism. For some perspective, the DNC tried all these tricks - and worse - on Obama as he wrested the nomination away from Hillary. If you believe that Sanders could walk into the Democratic Party after 30 years as independent and seize the nomination then you don't understand party politics.

Lastly, the question of DWS's resignation. To be clear, no allegations against DWS regarded 'actual corruption.' With that said, Putin timed his leaks beautifully to sabotage the Democratic Conventions. If you'll remember, these disclosures left the convention beginning in an upheaval and largely against HRC. Since there is no person able to force the resignation of the DNC chairperson, HRC faced a convention in open revolt against her and the chairperson. Offering DWS a spot in her campaign allowed her to resign and still save face, and allowed HRC to bring in a chairperson who could help bring the convention to heel. DWS draws no salary from the campaign nor has any responsibilities - we call this an honorary position. What you're calling 'actual corruption' I call deft political maneuvering.

Lastly, Bernie Sanders lost by over 3,000,000 votes. To suggest that the nomination should go to him is in defiance of the idea of a democracy, unless you are alleging that Hillary Clinton manufactured or stole 3 million votes.

"I wouldn't use the word 'rigged,' because we knew what the rules were. But what is really dumb is that you have closed primaries, like in New York State, where 3 million people who were Democrats or Republicans could not participate. Where you have a situation where over 400 superdelegates came on board Clinton's campaign before anybody else was in the race, eight months before the first vote was cast. That's not rigged. I think it's just a dumb process, which has certainly disadvantaged our campaign." - It seems Bernie himself would align much more closely with my interpretation of reality than yours.