your attempt at a counterargument is all might-have, could-have, maybe. Not a shred of evidence or conclusive reasoning.
1) A chain is a strong as its weakest link. What the limited available evidence tells us is that the Clinton server was not the weakest link. As Hillary has said, the use of private emails in the state department was not limited to her server, and the apparent weakest link was AOL.
2) It is one thing to obtain the email address and another to discover the server. Email addresses, including the domain name, can be and regularly are aliased. Many of my correspondents have self.com email addresses but are served by commercial providers. A top hacker might be able to find the server anyway, but according to the Pando account, Guccifer hacked Blumenthal's account by guessing that he used his grandmother's name as the password. Pretty elementary.
3) Your argument seems to be that the Clinton server could be hacked IF other accounts had been hacked first. That would make the Clinton server the more secure one.
Look, there is a scandal here, and the scandal is that a secretary of state or other government official has no option of a maximally secure email channel for official or for personal business, because the government relies on cheap computer equipment or services or on low-ball bids from private companies that are better at getting government contracts than establishing effective systems. That needs to change. Meanwhile, it seems that Hillary did the best she could with a poor situation.
= new reply since forum marked as read