Well, they're former Intel guys, so not much you can do to them but stop listening to them as they got this wrong, and in a sane world, getting things wrong hurts one's credibility.
Two things though. First, the media isn't in a sane world. It's in a massively politically-charged world in which the ends (ensuring Trump's defeat) justified the means (full-blown, prior restraint censorship like you'd see in China or North Korea but pushed corporately rather than by government). Accordingly, the media will keep going back to these intel guys so long as they give them information that confirms or reinforces their preferred political outcomes. Accuracy doesn't matter.
Second, though they were wrong, the intel guys aren't the worst actors here. They admitted that they had no evidence that this story was Russian disinformation. They said it looks like it is. Well, that's a lot less certain. It's not factual. It's just a few people's opinion and speculation. However, their statement got repeated a million times by the media as "Intel community says the story is Russian disinformation," which would be factual if true. These intel people had opinions that ended up being wrong, but the media lied about what they said to support radical and dangerous, freedom-killing action that their real statement would never justify. So though I'm no defender of the actual Intel people, I think the media and social media platforms are much bigger villains.
Like I've said before, most of our mainstream media should be given the same level of deference that Jim Bakker should get in religious circles. If anything, they should get less because Bakker eventually admitted his misconduct and dishonesty, which is at least part of the process of restoring one's credibility. These people maintain the lies.
