Yes it is thats where the defenition of Deep state comes from

What facts do you have to back your claim?

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

How did Clinton facilitate the Uranium deal? What was the bargain used for the deal and how did that favored Clinton?

Before you clear Trump, he's been with Russian mob and government operatives since the 80's. But go on...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/world/americas/deep-state-leaks-trump.html?_r=0

How did I "clear" Trump if I never discussed him? Is it that hard to stay on topic? Why quote my links if you don't respond to them?
Here they are in case you had a case of temporary illiteracy the first time around:

"Democratic" National Committee's OWN on-the-record opinion on inherent neutrality (or not) of primary process:
 https://medium.com/theyoungturks/dnc-we-can-legally-choose-candidate-over-cigars-in-back-room-e3026730e252

Clinton emails that Sanders intentionaly down-played show her actively undermining Sanders healthcare policy:
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-campaign-avoided-helping-single-payer-ballot-measure-emails-show

Or if you'd rather discuss punctuation than the topic at hand, here you go: &:'%9>8{}#@[]#)(!";"*,!

Probably meant the FBI. Gets so confusing at times with everyone being anti Trump too many initiails to remeber.

I mean lets just casualy meet with the DOJ to avert an FBI operation on my wife. Glad it somewhat failed and backfired on them

So how did Clinton facilitated the Uranium deal?

It's in the interest of the Intelligence Community to fight enemies foreign and domestic. If people wants to sell US, we're not gonna stand and watch.

Half of the steel being used in the Keystone Pipeline comes from Evraz (Russian owned steel company, owned by Putin close friend Abramovic).

there were loads of sketchy numbers, were Sanders suspiciously lost like every single precinct or region that was closely contested (and we're talking like only a few thousand (or less) votes in some cases over and over and over again).

But it was fairly obvious since the convention happened that the Democratic Party screwed him with tampering. He's too extreme for them and frankly they didn't have faith in him to win the general election. the hilarious thing is I think he would have had a great chance, better than Hilary, because he was for NEW things and frankly the only reason Trump won is because people wanted the suggestion of some change

don't trust the election process in general when things are tight. No one is going to rig something when the state or regional race is not close at all, but when you have loads and loads of practical ties like Hilary and Bernie had.... that's a huge opportunity for some numbers to go 'missing'

someone could argue that Trump winning sort of proves things aren't rigged, but like I say, there have to be loads of territories where the numbers are tight for anyone to consider rigging something or adjusting numbers. With Trump and Clinton (regardless of the popular total vote being close) most states were clear one way or another by a decent enough margin

I feel for Bernie. he's a bit extreme for my taste but at this point with the hugely widening gap between the rich and poor, and the mega corporations, maybe some taste of a  Bernie Sanders would help balance things out in the middle