I do not think they would falsify information from the intelligence community, but I definitely think they would omit certain details in an attempt to create and sustain a particular narrative, which is exactly what they did here. Their only description is an official with the U.S. intelligence community. Which intelligence community? The U.S. has a ton of intelligence agencies, so is it even one with access to this kind of information? And what kind of official? Are they a first-year naval intelligence officer or a thirty-year CIA vet with experience in Russian affairs?

And they imply other officials dispute these findings, but do absolutely nothing to explore that narrative. They just say something like, "few other officials dispute these claims...". So apparently someone somewhere in the same "official" capacity as their nameless source takes issue with the claim. Why is that?

This article goes to a bigger point: the election was as much an indictment against the U.S. media as it was the political status quo. People are tired of official sources speaking on conditions of anonymity. People are tired of one-sided political stories intended to promote one party over the other. People are tired of political appointees speaking their opinions as fact. This article is remarkably low on credibility and high on spin.