If I remember correctly, that was walked back to a claim that they'd hacked "RNC actors" but not the RNC themselves - and we already knew that because e-mails from Republicans were released fairly early on. This is a problem with a lot of the scary claims going around in general; they simply don't actually seem to be true.

Yes they did 1/2 have of the work they could but I'm not complaining about getting more information. Someone else should leak the RNC. Or possibly it didn't contain as many bombshells? Either way, I'm happy to get more information than I had before.

Maybe because RNC emails are mundane and don't have scandalous material?

The majority of the Podesta leaks were extremely mundane. This suggests the RNC leaks were held to a different standard.

The majority, yes. However some were "interesting".

Of course the majority were mundane. The majority of Chapo Guzman's private communications would be mundane too. The contents of the DNC emails suggest nothing about the contents of the RNC emails, though I have no doubt that republicans are equally crooked.

And what does the one-sidedness of the attacks and releases suggest?

The one-sidedness of the attacks? From whom? If you're referring to recent CIA claims that the RNC was hacked as well, then my answer is that I don't trust the CIA. It may have happened, but you have no real proof about Russian involvement at all. Unlike other posters in this thread and Clinton herself, I am not keen on starting a physical war with Russia over conjecture about a virtual attack.