[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  Apple Lamps [@lamps_apple](/creator/twitter/lamps_apple) on x 27.7K followers Created: 2025-07-18 18:47:45 UTC TLDR – Most Damning Evidence X. The FBI Dissented on Key Assessments: - The FBI officially requested their seal and co-authorship be removed from a Presidential Daily Briefing draft on December 8, 2016, because they disagreed with the conclusions. - This demonstrates major internal disagreement within the Intelligence Community about the Russian interference narrative. X. Low Confidence in Russia Attribution: - Both the FBI and NSA expressed low confidence that Russia was behind the DNC/DCCC leaks and stated they lacked the technical proof to make that connection (September 12, 2016). - Despite this, public statements attributed the leaks to Russia with higher confidence. X. Steele Dossier Was Not Trusted—But Used Anyway: - A DNI staff member confirmed that the Steele Dossier was never considered credible by the National Intelligence Council. - FBI Director Comey unilaterally included the dossier in a briefing to President-elect Trump, against the wishes and expectations of the rest of the intelligence leadership. X. White House Directly Coordinated and Rushed Assessments: Evidence shows the White House (Chief of Staff Denis McDonough) specifically pushed for a new intelligence product on Russian interference, and timelines for the final assessment were accelerated due to “media frenzy” and political pressure. X. No Evidence Russia Manipulated Votes: - Throughout 2016, internal intelligence assessments consistently found no evidence that Russian actors altered vote counts or directly manipulated election results. - These findings were omitted or downplayed in later public-facing reports. X. Final Public Report Did Not Assess Actual Election Impact: The final Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) admitted it did not assess the real-world impact of Russian actions on the outcome of the election, despite public implications to the contrary. Bottom Line This proves: - There was real, substantial dissent within the Intelligence Community about both the substance and presentation of Russian interference claims. - Key assessments and reservations were overridden, hidden, or ignored under direct White House coordination. - The most inflammatory evidence (like the Steele Dossier) was injected into the process by individuals, not consensus, and not based on analytic credibility. - Technical findings repeatedly stated no vote manipulation occurred, but this was not reflected in public messaging. This directly supports DNI Tulsi Gabbard’s claim that intelligence was manipulated, timelines were politicized, and a narrative was manufactured.... contrary to what many in the IC actually believed. XXXXXX engagements  **Related Topics** [seal](/topic/seal) [Post Link](https://x.com/lamps_apple/status/1946280748786573541)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Apple Lamps @lamps_apple on x 27.7K followers
Created: 2025-07-18 18:47:45 UTC
TLDR – Most Damning Evidence
X. The FBI Dissented on Key Assessments:
The FBI officially requested their seal and co-authorship be removed from a Presidential Daily Briefing draft on December 8, 2016, because they disagreed with the conclusions.
This demonstrates major internal disagreement within the Intelligence Community about the Russian interference narrative.
X. Low Confidence in Russia Attribution:
Both the FBI and NSA expressed low confidence that Russia was behind the DNC/DCCC leaks and stated they lacked the technical proof to make that connection (September 12, 2016).
Despite this, public statements attributed the leaks to Russia with higher confidence.
X. Steele Dossier Was Not Trusted—But Used Anyway:
A DNI staff member confirmed that the Steele Dossier was never considered credible by the National Intelligence Council.
FBI Director Comey unilaterally included the dossier in a briefing to President-elect Trump, against the wishes and expectations of the rest of the intelligence leadership.
X. White House Directly Coordinated and Rushed Assessments:
Evidence shows the White House (Chief of Staff Denis McDonough) specifically pushed for a new intelligence product on Russian interference, and timelines for the final assessment were accelerated due to “media frenzy” and political pressure.
X. No Evidence Russia Manipulated Votes:
Throughout 2016, internal intelligence assessments consistently found no evidence that Russian actors altered vote counts or directly manipulated election results.
These findings were omitted or downplayed in later public-facing reports.
X. Final Public Report Did Not Assess Actual Election Impact:
The final Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) admitted it did not assess the real-world impact of Russian actions on the outcome of the election, despite public implications to the contrary.
Bottom Line
This proves:
There was real, substantial dissent within the Intelligence Community about both the substance and presentation of Russian interference claims.
Key assessments and reservations were overridden, hidden, or ignored under direct White House coordination.
The most inflammatory evidence (like the Steele Dossier) was injected into the process by individuals, not consensus, and not based on analytic credibility.
Technical findings repeatedly stated no vote manipulation occurred, but this was not reflected in public messaging.
This directly supports DNI Tulsi Gabbard’s claim that intelligence was manipulated, timelines were politicized, and a narrative was manufactured.... contrary to what many in the IC actually believed.
XXXXXX engagements
Related Topics seal