If someone has e.g. punched 100 people, that someone doesn't get to look astonished and outraged when someone 1/10th their weight merely slaps them.
In general, the whole "But Ma, he hit me worse!" line of thinking isn't very useful in understanding history and geopolitics. A better analogy to use would be perhaps the case of a hard-core alcoholic who feels livid and indignant when called on his drunken behavior by the local neighborhood crackhead. Which is of course, to some extent, hypocritical (even though the two drugs and their dependence syndromes are rather different) -- but also, in regard to the alcoholic's own situation, entirely irrelevant.
Getting back to the original article: at least there's clear evidence now that Podesta's account subjected to (and fell for) a phishing attack; which makes it more likely that the emails were in fact stolen (and not "leaked from the inside", as some have claimed).
I didn't address the specific isolated facts, because in perspective they are insignificant.
If someone has e.g. punched 100 people, that someone doesn't get to look astonished and outraged when someone 1/10th their weight merely slaps them.
If your way to look at the world is to isolate every fact you see and look at it on its own, without reference frames, and even worse, not to even ask, "why are they showing me only this? Is there a bigger picture I should be aware of", then that's not MY way of looking at the world.
But it works for many, to jump from whatever they are shown to the next thing, and never question why and in what context. So, those people can knock themselves out with outrage over the "Russian influence" on the elections or Saddam's WMDs.