Here is your argument (I think):If the process had been fair, the outcome would have been the same. Therefore, the process was fair or at least it doesn't make any difference if the process was unfair. But it does make a difference: the DNC has helped nominate Trump and has made his election more likely than it would have been had the DNC met its obligation to be impartial.
Did I expect DWS to be impartial? No.
Do I think Bush would have won a recount in Florida? No. I'm just giving you an outline of an argument the late Justice Scalia made. But take Scalia's hypothesis as given; the conclusion is still false because the argument is wrong. Whether or not the outcome was correct, it did make a difference that the court was unfair. As Justice Stevens put it," Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."
Am I going to vote for Clinton? Yes. But I still believe that the DNC and its chairman, DWS, wronged, not just Sanders, but the Democratic Party and its nominee. Indeed, their dishonesty may yet have terrible consequences for us all.