Hi all. I took the time to read the "Unclassified version of intelligence report on Russian hacking during the 2016 election", so I'll give you my little report report. Let's begin.

Page 1 is the cover graphic. Nice seals. Round....Authoritative.

Pages 2 &3 explain some terminology used within and goes on with a virtual word-salad of disclaimers of the analytic process and determining attribution. All this is needed to explain an assessment which is based on these primary areas of information - what anyone can access on the internet or t.v., and on the perceived patterns of behavior of state agents by state agents. But I'm getting ahead of myself here.

4 – Title page, another round seal, nice color-muted graphic, disclaimer at the top:

“This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign”

Or maybe no supporting information at all?

5 – Intentionally left blank, except for that disclaimer that’s at the top of every damn page from 4 to the end.

6 & 7 are the “key judgements”, a summary of what is in the actual report below.

8, 9 & 10 have a table of contents, a blank area, another cool graphic, some more blank area.

Pages 11 through 15 contain the actual report, all 4 [edit:5 actually, seemed like 4 that I'd read before] pages of it, containing all of the claims that are assessed in the assessment, with no actual data or names to corroborate the claims, a lot of “high confidence” and “most likely” (terms covered in the intro and again in the review near the end of the release) applied to a few very unsurprising claims about what Putin and many Russian officials felt was in their best interests, like:

“We assess Putin, his advisers, and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump over Secretary Clinton.”

Nice accurate job of assessment, I’d say, though impressed I'm not.

And of course, the cyber-espionage we all have hear about and expect from intelligence agencies here, there, and everywhere, and still, no data, specifics or names other than Putin and Julian Assange. Heavy on “government-linked actors” though.

I was not at all surprised to find that Putin shares my dislike of Hillary Clinton, but this was new to me - “Russian intelligence accessed elements of multiple state or local electoral boards.” That however, got no more specific than to mention that they were not involved in vote tallying. This is one thing we should know more about, but…..

Then comes the use of media releases and online trolls, all of which we’re all quite aware and all of which has been regularly and/or recently used by many political campaigns (can you name one?) and intelligence agencies (and every major business interest) right here in the US. Oh, and we must know that this “Influence Effort Was Boldest Yet”. Yep, SOP both for the expected propaganda campaign and for this report’s “assessment” of it.

Almost to illustrate how mundane this report is, there’s this statement, bullet-pointed, which couldn’t possibly strike anyone who’s been around for more than a few years as a surprising revelation:

“During the Cold War, the Soviet Union used intelligence officers, influence agents, forgeries, and press placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to the Kremlin, according to a former KGB archivist.”

Yawn. I'm old enough I could’a told you that!

Pages 16 through 22 is an "annex" of media programs, mainly of RT, and describes their close ties to the Russian state (did you know RT stands for Russian Television?….Wow!), and the social media used by RT staff, such as YouTube, Twitter, Facebook. Here the report does name names, likely because here, it just doesn’t matter. It's media, and media gets to lie as it pleases. Fox News got that settled by a US court years ago. We all should know that.

Pages 23 through 23 review the “estimative language” that was explained at length in the first section. It does contain what may be the most significant disclaimer of the report, and a general description of the process of intelligence "assessments":

"Judgements are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents"

Pages 24 through 25 are intentionally left blank and closing graphics.

Done. That’s it, folks!