The report was not endorsed by all of our intel agencies and that is long established. The report was written by a select few intel people picked by James Clapper. You claim it's not important after you used it to attempt to bolster an argument.
Then you attempted to move on by claiming it's the contents that are important. Those contents consisted of these few intel agents accepting Crowdstrike's report blaming the Russians for the dnc hacking, even though Crowdstrike was paid by the dnc and neither the intel agents or the FBI every examined the servers or any other physical evidence. To top it off, Donna Brazille admitted that the dnc destroyed the servers so they could not be examined by outsiders. Like the FBI.
The intel agents did do some perfunctory work, like oh, say, watching a few Russia Today programs and concluding that Russia didn't like Hillary.
Add it up and you have an appeal to authority. Take the few select intel agents word for this or you're a clown. That's all it amounted to.
I'm still interested in whether you are ricter.
I’m not “ricter”.
You claim a few select agents but the report says they have a consensus of the fbi, cia, nsa and dni (which oversees 17 intelligence agencies).
You are arguing the American intelligence community is engaged in a conspiracy against Russia. That is absurd.