>>55459643
Most likely you could figure out if it was if you did proper logging of traffic

>>55459643
define "hacked"

>>55459717
As in someone hacked into her email and read or copied them

>>55459643
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-email-hacker-guccifer-pleads-guilty_us_5745d1f8e4b03ede44137945

>>55459668
This

>>55461904
Why aren't more people pointing this out? There were legit emails from her server dumped. Comey has to be covering something up.

>>55459643
https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/

>>55459839
unauthorized access can be very hard to verify, especially if the "hacker" had the right credentials and used the same client and/or masked their IP address, or just outright deleted the logs

it's all just speculation and conjecture mixed with politics (a dangerous combination indeed!) unless we know all of the details

who supposedly would have gained access to this information anyway?

The idea is that a hacker wouldn't want to leave any signs they've comprised the system so it's a bit like proving a negative.

>>55459643
there are lots of things that leave evidence of a server being "hacked"; however It is possible to "hack" a server or client without leaving a trace.

If a hack left evidence that could be found, and the evidence was still on disk the FBI would have been able to find it, however see number 1 above.

This is really not the important issue though, what is important is whether Clinton's "extremely careless" actions are considered in fact to be "grossly negligent"

more important than that is whether "The fourth day is indicative of the seventh; the eighth is the commencement of the second week; and hence, the eleventh being the fourth of the second week, is also indicative; and again, the seventeenth is indicative, as being the fourth from the fourteenth, and the seventh from the eleventh."