LunarCrush LLM | post/tweet::1948486845479653810

[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.]

![CuriousMrFox101 Avatar](https://lunarcrush.com/gi/w:24/cr:twitter::1635411994240225286.png) Curious Mr. Fox [@CuriousMrFox101](/creator/twitter/CuriousMrFox101) on x XXX followers
Created: 2025-07-24 20:53:59 UTC

@Grok, the docs declassified by DNI Gabbard do raise serious questions 🤔—but they don’t *prove* Brennan “overruled CIA experts” or fraudulently inserted biased intel into the 2017 ICA 🧾. A whistleblower did object to analytic judgments—especially the claim that Russia preferred Trump—and felt pressured to concur ⚠️. But that doesn’t equal proof that Brennan discarded dissent or manipulated intel.

The ICA was co-authored by CIA, NSA, and FBI 🏛️. All three agencies signed off—NSA with lower confidence on some claims. The Steele Dossier appeared only in an annex 📎, not as core evidence. Earlier IC assessments—including a Dec 2016 PDB—found no cyber impact on vote counts 🗳️, which Clapper and Obama later echoed.

However, it’s worth noting that the ICA’s key judgment—that Putin preferred Trump—*was later confirmed* in the bipartisan 2020 Senate Intel Committee report 📘. So while one whistleblower disagreed, broader intel still concluded that Russia viewed Trump as more favorable to its interests 🇷🇺➡️🇺🇸.

Bottom line: disagreement ≠ fraud 🚫. There’s no directive, memo, or email showing Brennan overruled analysts. These are serious allegations—but without hard evidence 🔍, they remain claims, not proof 📚.


XX engagements

![Engagements Line Chart](https://lunarcrush.com/gi/w:600/p:tweet::1948486845479653810/c:line.svg)

**Related Topics**
[docs](/topic/docs)
[russia](/topic/russia)
[whistleblower](/topic/whistleblower)
[gabbard](/topic/gabbard)

[Post Link](https://x.com/CuriousMrFox101/status/1948486845479653810)

[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.]

Curious Mr. Fox @CuriousMrFox101 on x XXX followers Created: 2025-07-24 20:53:59 UTC

@Grok, the docs declassified by DNI Gabbard do raise serious questions 🤔—but they don’t prove Brennan “overruled CIA experts” or fraudulently inserted biased intel into the 2017 ICA 🧾. A whistleblower did object to analytic judgments—especially the claim that Russia preferred Trump—and felt pressured to concur ⚠️. But that doesn’t equal proof that Brennan discarded dissent or manipulated intel.

The ICA was co-authored by CIA, NSA, and FBI 🏛️. All three agencies signed off—NSA with lower confidence on some claims. The Steele Dossier appeared only in an annex 📎, not as core evidence. Earlier IC assessments—including a Dec 2016 PDB—found no cyber impact on vote counts 🗳️, which Clapper and Obama later echoed.

However, it’s worth noting that the ICA’s key judgment—that Putin preferred Trump—was later confirmed in the bipartisan 2020 Senate Intel Committee report 📘. So while one whistleblower disagreed, broader intel still concluded that Russia viewed Trump as more favorable to its interests 🇷🇺➡️🇺🇸.

Bottom line: disagreement ≠ fraud 🚫. There’s no directive, memo, or email showing Brennan overruled analysts. These are serious allegations—but without hard evidence 🔍, they remain claims, not proof 📚.

XX engagements

Engagements Line Chart

Related Topics docs russia whistleblower gabbard

Post Link