I guess I'm a proof is in the pudding guy. You've not provided any proof, just a lot of reason to be suspicious. This goes exactly like my debates with Trump supporters when it comes to the 2020 election "Well, I believe I have a lot of reasons to be suspicious, so it's reasonable for me to call it rigged." In both cases, the evidence does not back up the claim.

If the claim is that the DNC did some improper things during the 2016 democratic nomination and showed a bias against Sanders, I absolutely agree. If the claim is that they rigged it, sorry, my man, but that's just as fictional as the MAGA claims of 2020 election fraud.

I'm mostly copy-pasting this from another post I made, where someone graciously gave me a link that pretty much completely dispels the myth of rigging the 2016 (ironically, they were providing the link to make it seem reasonable to believe it was rigged).

https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=jlpp

From the link:

The bottom line is Clinton won the nomination because she appealed to more Democratic voters than Sanders did.

The ultimate irony of the 2016 presidential contest was the fact that the Democratic rules benefited Bernie Sanders far more than Hillary Clinton.

if every superdelegate from a state won by Sanders supported him at the nominating convention, Clinton would still have led Sanders by a margin of 2,721 delegates to 2,019.2 Likewise, eliminating superdelegates entirely would still have seen Clinton ahead of Sanders by a margin of 2,205 pledged delegates to 1,846

If the DNC had rigged the nomination process against Bernie Sanders, logic would suggest Hillary Clinton should have swept the caucuses and Sanders should have performed best in the primaries. After all, the state Democratic Party organizations administer the caucuses, whereas state and local election authorities administer primary elections. Instead, the reverse proved to be true. Clinton won twenty-nine out of the thirty-nine primaries, whereas Sanders won twelve out of the fourteen caucuses. Ironically, therefore, Sanders ran strongest in the election contests administered by the Democratic Party

The simple fact is Sanders lost the race because Democratic voters preferred Clinton. As the political scientist William Mayer observed, "whatever criticisms Sanders and his supporters may have about the 2016 presidential nomination process, they cannot reasonably complain that Hillary Clinton won even though the voters really preferred him. The primary results, in particular, speak loudly to the contrary."

The 2016 election demonstrated the disturbing ease with which political falsehoods spread. . . It is therefore more important than ever to document the historical record accurately. The myth of a "rigged" nomination must not be left unchallenged. In defense of America's democratic institutions, we must tell the truth about what happened in the 2016 election.

You’d end up saying “wahhh it’s not technically illegal so it doesn’t matter”

Don't put words in my mouth, you'll just make a fool of yourself. Although, I'm curious how you are going to spin and deny an actual analysis of the vote showing that it being rigged was extremely unlikely. Just like Trump supporters, you'll just keep on going believing what you want to believe, facts be damned. You're not the only one who has done this dance a million times. The difference between you is that I put the facts above my desire, and once they showed that it wasn't true, I stopped believing it.