DNC lawyers are now on the record in court case, arguing DNC charter and bylaw requirements to conduct primary elections neutrally and impartially are not legally binding, that "impartial" is too vague a concept to have legal meaning, and that they could have chosen candidates by secret back-room deals despite public claims to have fair democratic process. Wow, that sounds like an argument somebody who acted 100% impartially would make (/s):
https://medium.com/theyoungturks/dnc-we-can-legally-choose-candidate-over-cigars-in-back-room-e3026730e252
Of course, it is not just DNC = bad and Sanders = good, as OP points out, he was in on it, making a point not to criticize Clinton outside narrow range of issues, ignoring her purposeful subversion of Freedom of Information Act and lying about the crime, her corrupt dalliances with foreign as well as domestic oligarchs (despite later going along with "Russia Bad!" attack line vs Trump, who never facilitated Uranium deals for Russian companies like Clintons did). Sanders downplayed "the email scandal" even when "the emails" revealed Clinton siding against his favorite policy, single-payer healthcare, to the extent of not making even her normal pitch on health-care, because anti-single-payer forces (insurance & pharma) feared that could help single-payer ballot initiative in Colorado: http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-campaign-avoided-helping-single-payer-ballot-measure-emails-show
