[_up]

Everyone can be accused. That in itself doesn't mean anything. Also, Ex FBI Director Comney testified that the FBI didn't get access to the DNC server. Instead, the DNC hired itself people to verify their claim that they were hacked. How can they be serious if they aren't even trying to secure the main evidence? It is also pretty clear that they are not on Trumps side by announcing this directly before the summit.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?425087-1/fbi-director-investig...

[18pfsmt]

This is a site populated by technical people, so please don't characterize technical security audits so simplistically ("what about the server" is a complete red herring).

There were 140 servers, not "the server." Regardless, the interesting data was found in the network gear of the data center that housed the servers (i.e. meta data/ connectivity logs). Trump was given the choice as to when the latest indictments were announced.

[_up]

I don't know why you seem to be so triggered. I only wanted to discuss an alternate viewpoint. Science is about asking questions not accepting only studies that validate your own viewpoint.

I didn't know that there were 140 servers involved. Interesting. So did Comney lie and the FBI actually did get access to everything, including the physical Hardware. The thing is even if you have found proof that Russian Spies got access to the system it only implicates spying not publishing. The leak could still have come from someone inside the DNC. So to examine everything is essential. Also usually Police at least try to look impartial and not only look at evidence that supports their desired outcome. Looking only at the network gear like you said is the opposite of that.