She was employed at CNN. If she acted alone, then maybe you can argue it wasn't "the media" but one person. But how was she able to view the questions ahead of time? She was a known Clinton supporter, no?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cnn-drops-don...
"From time to time, I get the questions in advance."
"I'll send a few more."
- Donna Brazile to John Podesta
Wikileaks references:
No, that's part of the problem. She was a mover and shaker behind the scenes but had not formally and publicly declared an allegiance (of course, it was obvious from the way she talked on CNN). She was an ostensibly unaffiliated commentator who had a secret allegiance.
It's an excellent case study of why news agencies and networks should not have paid political operators (hacks) on their payroll and the fact that it went wrong is entirely predictable.
I'll support Bernie and his policies over Clinton any day of the week, but I have no doubt Hillary would have won the dem primaries without Donna's attempts at illicit support.
Compare that to what's likely in Trump's tax returns (and do you think the Russians really don't have a copy?), and you'll see that these are absolutely non-issues.
Also, care to defend (3) in any way?
Not blaming Russia for Hillary's failures, of course, just pointing out that even intelligent people are super confused by the disinformation that happened this year.