Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald described the publicly available version of the report, titled "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections," as "flimsy."
That they filled *half* the report with old, public-source information about RT shows how flimsy at least this version of the report is. https://t.co/VCyzwxjey7— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) 6 января 2017 г.
Kevin Rothrock, a web editor at The Moscow Times, called the document "an embarrassment."
I'll say it: the declassified USG report "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections" is an embarrassment.— Kevin Rothrock (@KevinRothrock) 6 января 2017 г.
That there's nothing on the table in this cartoon certainly captures the substance of the declassified report. https://t.co/p2zedkqw4A— Kevin Rothrock (@KevinRothrock) 6 января 2017 г.
The document has been criticized for not providing compelling evidence to support its claims, which Moscow has repeatedly denied.
Stephen Hayes, Editor-in-Chief of The Weekly Standard and Fox News contributor, said that the report was "little more than a collection of assertions."
The intel report on Russia is little more than a collection of assertions. Understand protecting sources/methods, but it's weak.— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) 6 января 2017 г.
Rampant politicization of intel under Obama (on al Qaeda, UBL docs, ISIS, Iran), means more transparency required to support assessments.— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) 6 января 2017 г.
Shaun Walker, the Moscow correspondent of The Guardian, observed that the report looked like something that a few journalists "compiled over a couple of days, not serious [intelligence] agencies over months."
Is it just me or does report look more like something a few journos compiled over a couple of days, not serious Intel agencies over months?— Shaun Walker (@shaunwalker7) 6 января 2017 г.
I don't understand. Thought it was supposed to be 100 pages? Five cursory pages and a large, old annex about RT?! Is there more coming?!— Shaun Walker (@shaunwalker7) 6 января 2017 г.
"The NYT calls the report 'damning and surprisingly detailed.' We must be reading different reports," the journalist added.
The NYT calls the report "damning and surprisingly detailed". We must be reading different reports. https://t.co/tItMXQn1N3— Shaun Walker (@shaunwalker7) 6 января 2017 г.
Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, a staunch critic of the Kremlin, noted that the report left many questions unanswered.
Glad to see DNI report published today, but SO MANY questions still left unanswered. I worry that this story will fade, esp after 1-20-17.— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) 7 января 2017 г.
NY Times says the US intelligence report on Russia is "damning and surprisingly detailed," then adds that it contains no actual evidence pic.twitter.com/qpncWboVEV— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) 7 января 2017 г.
The DNI report has no more than a page about actual hacking. There are more references to RT covering Occupy Wall Street than to hacking.— Virgil Texas (@virgiltexas) 6 января 2017 г.
The DNI report released on January 6 is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment provided to US President Barack Obama. The US intelligence community said that the document cannot include "the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods" since "the release of such information would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future."
Maybe the IC has reams of new classified evidence showing Russia did the DNC hack. No new evidence in this report. https://t.co/cHAuxReChh— Noah Shachtman (@NoahShachtman) 6 января 2017 г.
DNI jamming in a 5yo paper on RT to pad their report like a hungover freshman in Sigma Chi is the best evidence agnst conspiracies Ive seen— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) 7 января 2017 г.