Well, it is for an obvious reason, but not for the reason that you imply.
Intelligence agencies do not formulate or recommend policies. Period. The CIA doesn’t come up with recommendations for how to deal with Russian hacking. It has nothing to do with classification, it has to do with the responsibilities of intelligence agencies.
As I’ve already stated. You think that’s going to stop Russia from doing this again? Ha.
This is a complete red herring - but please provide the cite that shows Hillary and/or her campaign took money from the Government of Iran.
And after you’ve done that, please show what Hillary’s proposed policies were apparently implicated in any quid pro quo resulting from such a donation.
Good luck, Trump’s deflection squad is counting on you.
This might be the report that treis is referring to, which offers a very barebones description of what methods the hackers are thought to have used to breach the DNC network systems and some “mitigation strategies” for trying to prevent future similar breaches or mitigate their damage. It is far from comprehensive, though, in that it is not the actual criminal investigation report, does not detail or provide timelines of what happened, what was breached, and what information was accessed/downloaded, does not reveal the telltale signs that pointed to Russian involvement, and does not indicate what actions should be taken in response as retaliation.
As you suggest, no investigator who is charged with determining the facts and the who/what/where/why/how of events is going to recommend geo-political policies or actions to take in response, other than purely technical defensive or educational measures as those suggested in the linked report.
So, if the above linked report is not what you are talking about, is the report you are referring to public or not? If it is not, then your first statement is false and you have no way of knowing whether “people have already gotten to the bottom in a comprehensive way.”