FFS twice over.
FFS 1: The intent of the OP shines through what they said: they are not outraged that dirt was exposed on Clinton, they are outraged that Wikileaks used dirt on Clinton to support Trump. Wikileaks took sides. Taking sides is the reprehensible bit. The notions that Wikileaks didn't solicit for the dirt on Clinton / the DNC, that Wikileaks didn't have dirt just as damning, if not more so, on Trump / the RNC
FFS 2: If the people wanted Sanders rather than Clinton, then they did a pretty poor job of showing it, given that she won the popular vote in the primary by 3.75 million votes. If you believe rigging delivered all those extra votes for Clinton, I don't just have a bridge for you, I have a tunnel too. If you peer through it, you'll see a magic land with unicorns and pixie dust.