my omission of the link. I meant to include it and have edited it in.

I appreciate the questions you're raising. Your point that nothing the DNC was doing was illegal I think is untrue. You say,

The hacks were made through phishing emails to individual Democrats... They reveal nothing illegal but a lot of mean gossip, sniping and plotting. Nothing about actual voting machines.

This article addresses that issue:

http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-unde...

… Most of the emails released come from seven prominent DNC staff members: senior adviser Andrew Wright, national finance director Jordon Kaplan, finance chief of staff Scott Comer, Northern California finance director Robert Stowe, finance director of data and strategic initiatives Daniel Parrish, finance director Allen Zachary…

The release provides further evidence the DNC broke its own charter violations by favoring Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee, long before any votes were cast.

Over the past several weeks, Guccifer 2.0 released several internal memos showing DNC staff strategizing to make Clinton the presidential nominee—as early as March 2015. In June 2016, Florida-based law firm, Beck & Lee, filed a class action lawsuit against Wasserman Schultz and the DNC based on the revelations from these leaked files.

Other emails show DNC staff in damage control over allegations from the Sanders campaign, when a report—corroborated by a Politico—revealed the DNC’s joint fundraising committee with the Clinton campaign was laundering money to the Clinton campaign instead of fundraising for down-ticket Democrats.

I am a lifelong Democrat for the purpose of voting in the Primaries. During the entire past year I have received between 10 and 20 emails per day from the DNC and the DCCC asking me for money. If you raise money for an organization that has a charter defining how you can spend it, and you spend it wrongly, you have committed a fraud. And this fraud in particular does what the media are saying Putin did. It deprives the voters of their right to participate in an honest election.

The other issue you raise is this:

I don't understand why so many don't believe there was any Russian involvement at all. Why do people reject this news completely just the way Trump does.

It's taken me this long to respond to your question because I wanted to make sure I read the whole David Sanger article at the NY Times asserting the CIA conclusion. And I watched David Sanger talk about it with Charlie Rose on my computer, the beauty of which is that you can stop, go back, and make sure you heard what Sanger said, exactly. My life experience is that the CIA lies, a lot, about war. And that's what this crisis is about. What I heard and read in the article and the interview were weasel words, qualifiers, and suggestions that Russia committed the hacks, but no definitive statements. When Charlie Rose pressed Sanger on that problem, Sanger eventually said that the CIA and President Obama can't come right out and declare that the Russians did it because to do so would reveal sources and methods and also put the administration in a position of having to respond in some way, presumably by sanctions, the enforcement of which would require other countries to see the evidence or proof, which would again reveal sources and methods.

So from my point of view, all of what the CIA is saying may be true. Or it may be false. But what is clear to me is that whoever released this information to the American people revealed the truth about the Democratic Party to its members and to the voters, and that was a good thing.