@willdup
Here's the issue w/ anything you link on this issue: If the new report that I linked previously is to be believed (and subsequent parts of the story have been released), then any reporting on this issue in the past 7 years is based on poisoned fruit.
HERE is the newest part of their investigation/story.
Per the story above, there was disagreement and a lack of consensus on the conclusion that John Brennan wanted to be factual: that Russia wanted Trump to win. The intelligence community (led by Brenan) wanted to get Trump, but that did not align with the intel that the Kremlin wanted Hillary Clinton to win, because they viewed her potential presidency as more manageable.
So, Brennan decided to handpick his analysts to compartmentalize selective intelligence to back his Trump-Russia bias, thereby cooking the intelligence and ironically doing the work of the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in marginalizing the work of the State Department and the Defense Intelligence Agency who did not support the CIA’s main Trump/Russia conclusion.
I'll save you from having to sign up for a free trial or subscribing, a few highlights:
Again, these are respected journalists, not known for right-wing conspiracy theories.