report will be added to the history of embarrassing reports by the US intelligence agencies. And since the report was listing the various "open sources" badmouthing of Hillary by Russian propagandists, why did the list miss the FBI director whose famous letter to US Congress did more to sway the voters in the last few days of the election than the Wikileaks releases. The report is weak, particular when we saw at least twice that NSA had "moderate" confidence in certain assertions, in which CIA and FBI had "high" confidence. Also, for a report carrying the fanfare it does (if you measure by newspapers headlines) it is rather weak and even contain the word "probably" (see image). The case is basically a combination of secret sources (which we can't judge and we have to accept the veracity of the three (not 17) intelligence agencies, and the rest are basically trolls and RT news programs. If the report lists (in absurd details) Russian TV programming about US elections as a factor in a report about Russian hacking, than US coverage of every election in every corner in the globe, specially if you factor in US propaganda outlets like Hurra TV or Sawa Radio, then US is guilty of worst crimes than Russia, especially if you factor in the scope of "open source" US favoring of candidates around the world. This is a weak report which should be dismissed--barring any evidence which can be released to the public. If you read the report, in its unclassified version, you come up with the conclusion that there was a desperate attempt to links evidence where links were not provided. I mean, how do we know that the Russian TV programs (and even trolls) were linked to the Russian intelligence board orchestrating hacking? Finally, look at the chart below: I have been telling you for some time, that Russian propaganda TV, RT, is really growing--I know it is in the Middle East at least.
PS I swear: the New York Times is as loyal to the US intelligence-military apparatus as the Saudi mouthpieces of princes are loyal to the Saudi regime. The New York Times calls this report "damning and surprisingly detailed" when I thought it was flimsy and surprisingly undetailed. And we read the same report.
PPS Also, if voters in the US are swayed by Russian propaganda, do you blame the voters or Russian propaganda? If voters are swayed by Al-Qa`idah propaganda, do you blame Al-Qa`idah or voters who are susceptible to Russian propaganda. Also, the report talks about RT reports mocking the health of Hillary and her candidacy: as if Drudge Report and Fox News were not doing that--unless the classified version of the Intelligence Report also links those two entities to Russian intelligence.