The coordinating body of all 17 agencies did say there was Russian interference in the election, but not all agencies would have been relevant to such a stateme

The coordinating body of all 17 agencies did say there was Russian interference in the election, but not all agencies would have been relevant to such a statement. Politifact rates the 17 agencies line as true - they go into some detail as to why. At the worst, the line is a slight exaggeration/misspeak during a live event. https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligen... The DNI publicly put out a report. I recall statements by the FBI Director, CIA Director, and NSA Director referring and promoting the conclusions drawn in the report (those 3 agencies were principally involved, in addition to being the three most important and largest intelligence agencies). https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf The Senate Intelligence Committee (which is GOP controlled) has also put out several reports concurring with Russian interference in the 2016 election. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu... The initial news cycle would have been from highly valued and proven anonymous sources, which is typical for national security matters. If you are expecting a bunch of CIA analysts doxxing themselves on the front page of the NYT, you will be disappointed. That’s not how national security reporting (or reporting in general) works. To be of excellent provenance doesn’t necessarily require a named source - if the paper and journalist have a good track record with unnamed sources in an area of expertise.