They shouldn't be looking for facts as to who may have hacked the election until they've made a decision on if the election was hacked. There is no evidence of

They shouldn't be looking for facts as to who may have hacked the election until they've made a decision on if the election was hacked. There is no evidence of hacking, their is evidence of potential hacking which can be confirmed by looking at the paper trail. Only once the hacking theory is confirmed, will anybody need to look into the how, and the who. If you call the police to your house saying you've been robbed, they don't immediately go out trying to find out who robbed you. They need to look at the scene. Did somebody actually break in? Or is it a fake call? How did they break in, what did they actually take, how do we think they did it, then using the knowledge they have gained from the crime, they can come up with theories of who might have done it. Same goes here.