> Not the OP but: If the servers were poorly secured, the number of entities that could have hacked them goes from "nation states" to "damn near anyone who wanted to"

The argument that Russia did it has never been that "only a nation state could do it" (which would leave lots of possibilities besides Russia).

It was that forensic analysis revealed specific indicators of specific threat groups that have been previously identified as being operated by specific components of the Russian government being the parties involved in the attacks. Motive is also a factor.

I mean, yeah, the door being unlocked means anyone could have gotten in without breaking it down and killed the guy, but its kind of natural to zero in on the guy whose fingerprints were on the knife and who had a motive to commit the murder.

Except, maybe China retrieved the emails, but was more careful to leave no trace and didn't say it. Which means they can have been used in order to blackmail people against the interest of the United States, without us knowing, which makes whoever didn't secure the server a treator.

What would you say if a guard let a foreign spy walk into the pentagon? Blame the spy?

>What would you say if a guard let a foreign spy walk into the pentagon? Blame the spy?

Yes, you don't get immunity from espionage if the job was easy.