Yes. He made of point of saying there was no direct evidence. Well, direct evidence of the sort he describes would be e-mail transmission logs, which customarily are erased after a short time, a couple months at most; or some sort of intrusion log that also showed the transmission of information to a hostile force, and that sort of log would be unusual.
Assume that some foreign/hostile force has the emails. That would not be direct evidence that the foreign/hostile force hacked the private server.
>Assume that some foreign/hostile force has the emails. That would not be direct evidence that the foreign/hostile force hacked the private server.<
Absolutely, since it was stated that the recipients of Clinton’s emails were found to have been hacked.