Do this with a "French accent" and it's pretty much what I would say:[1]
"I don't know how people can get so whipped up by either side of the political debate when clearly both sides are engaging in nefarious activity and espionage and it's just accepted as a normal part of political life. For me, it's not about a a personal lack of trust in Hillary Clinton, or the evident dislike many people feel for Hillary Clinton. This is more about a total lack of trust in these political institutions and agencies. And a legitimate reason to feel cynical and sceptical about politics. For me, this is not interesting because he's like "what politicians aren't reliable". This is simply "see, what are you so excited about".
Another thing he mentions is that since both parties are culpable, they really can't criticize the other one. The ability to criticize comes from a true moral superiority because your side isn't engaging in these activities.
Anyway, one of the major problems with the US is that the two parties are pretty much the same: no matter how much you want to believe your side is somehow different. The reason US elections are interminable is that they is big money involved in all this. Foreign elections don't last as long, and have multiple parties, because there isn't the expense which is a major charateristic of US elections.
There is a post brewing on why Bernie Sanders would have been the best choice to have run in 2016, which is pretty much an undeniable fact no matter which side of the political spectrum you are on. The problem is that his popular campaign wasn't given the proper coverage since Hillary Clinton was going to be the nominee in 2016 no matter what.
That was the real reason Trump became president and it had nothing to do with Russian interference.
And in case you needed a laugh:
Footnote:
[1] The "French accent" is more figurative than literal, hence the quotation marks and this explanation. As P.T. Barnum said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."