(teleSUR) Washington – According to the U.S., intelligence agencies should decide what information the public needs.

According to the U.S. State Department, it is up to that country’s intelligence community to decide when and what information to release to the public.

Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic Flickr: Ted Eytan

State Department spokesperson John Kirby suggested as much Monday when explaining why they don’t have to release evidence of the alleged Russian interference in the U.S. elections during a press briefing.

“Most American people understand that they have the responsibility to protect their sources and methods,” Kirby said, answering a question posed by an RT reporter.

After calling it “irresponsible” to do otherwise, Kirby added that the agencies themselves are the ones who should control the flow of information.

“We rely on them to make that determination for themselves,” Kirby said at Monday’s press briefing.

On Friday, a report was released by the 17 intelligence agencies operating in the U.S. Kirby assured that all of them agreed that “Russia interfered in the U.S. election…over and over again.”

However, the evaluation describes itself as an “analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among” the three main agencies: the Central Intelligence Agency or CIA, The Federal Bureau of Investigation or FBI and the National Security Agency or NSA.

Moreover, among those three main agencies that worked on the report, the NSA – which is the one that would theoretically possess the actual surveillance data to prove anything – has only expressed “moderate” confidence in the report.

In response to the Iraq WMD scandal, in which the government was caught lying about their existence, State Department spokesperson John Kirby simply thought the world should “move on” since so much time had passed.

“We have learned a lot from those mistakes,” he said, adding that Secretary of State John Kerry was confident in how the matter was handled.

He “believes strongly that they handled this matter in the appropriate way, in terms of how it was analyzed, how it was presented, and how it was briefed to those who needed to see a deeper level of information.”

This post originally ran on teleSUR.