To read the following articles in full use the linked images, bearing with sites’ various requirements and messages. The links don’t open in new windows but overwrite on-screen content.
First as far as I can tell, here’s the original story’s source dated 7th January on this long overdue Report:

Although Jim Hoft’s item below is accessible, his site inserts linked-headers to other items and so readers need to discern the differences to follow the thread…

The easier to read up-to-date article is below but it first asks for email address to enable free reading:

This article continues:

‘Citing a report by the Intelligence Community’s analytic ombudsman Barry Zulauf, the director of national intelligence said that some analysts were reluctant to describe China’s actions as election interference because the analysts disagreed with the policies of President Donald Trump.

‘The Washington Examiner published Ratcliffe’s letter and the ombudsman report on Jan. 17, 10 days after publishing an original report on the documents. The ODNI didn’t immediately respond to requests from The Epoch Times to authenticate the documents.

“Based on all available sources of intelligence, with definitions consistently applied, and reached independent of political considerations or undue pressure—that the People’s Republic of China sought to influence the 2020 U.S. federal elections,” Ratcliffe wrote.

‘The report by Zulauf was sent to Congress on Jan. 7 alongside an intelligence community assessment of interference in the 2020 election. In the report (pdf), Zulauf states that the analysts working on Russia and China applied different standards to their reporting on election interference. While labeling Russia’s activity as clear election interference, the analysts were reluctant to do the same for China… ‘ (continue here)

The CIA delay isn’t surprising given its severely suspicious secretive activities behind the scenes and connection with Facebook, and thus with China’s Communist Party (per vol 2 of The Navarro Report, as blogged previously)