1. If there was nothing damaging, embarrassing, or that demonstrated manipulation of the Democratic primary process (including the provision of media questions to Hillary Clinton before a Presidential debate) in the emails that the Russians supposedly hacked, would that hacking have impacted the election in any meaningful way?
2. Do you support the behavior by Hillary, the DNC, and those assisting her campaign that was exposed in those emails, and if so, why did Debbie Wasserman-Schultz have to resign from her DNC position?
3. If Russian hackers, or Wikileaks etc, were to find details/communications that implicated Trump or his campaign staff or any high-ranking Republican in a scandal, and released those details/communications to the public, would you disregard that information because you didn't like the source it came from and how they accessed the information? If so, why did you give so much attention and credibility to the Steele Dossier, which has now been shown to have been funded by the Clinton campaign and to be false? Why did you give her a pass on this?
4. If Russian hackers, or Wikileaks, or some anonymous hackers from anywhere were to find evidence of a plot of terrorists to attack America and potentially kill thousands, would you condemn these hackers for making this material available to us to prevent an attack - because of the way they obtained the information? If your answer is no, why would that be acceptable to you but revealing information that the DNC was crooked and was manipulating the primary process in Clinton's favor was not? After all, manipulating the US voting process - as the DNC was doing, is potentially as damaging to the US as a terrorist attack.
“information that the DNC [and others] was crooked”
I agree. To me that’s what it’s all about. Debating the legality of how the information was obtained is a sideshow.