Susan Miller, a former senior CIA officer who played a critical role in the 2017 intelligence assessment regarding Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, has publicly rejected recent claims made by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and the White House, asserting they are “lying” about the nature of the Russian actions.
Miller, who contributed to the intelligence report that concluded Moscow aimed to assist President Donald Trump’s bid for the presidency, clarified that while there was no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, Russia’s intent was evident.
In an interview with NBC News, she stated, “We definitely had the intel to show with high probability that the specific goal of the Russians was to get Trump elected.”
However, she emphasized that her team found no collusion between Trump or his associates and Russian operatives at that time.
Her remarks followed comments made by Gabbard, who alleged that the intelligence assessment was based on “manufactured” data, serving as a part of a “treasonous conspiracy” orchestrated by the Obama administration to undermine Trump’s victory. Gabbard referenced a 2020 report from Republicans on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which she declassified and released recently, claiming there was a lack of substantial evidence to support the assertion that Russia was attempting to tip the scales in Trump’s favor.
Miller responded to Gabbard’s allegations by asserting that there is a script that Trump and his supporters are following that contradicts the facts.
While briefing Trump and other officials about the intelligence assessment in 2017, Miller and her team made it clear they could not determine the impact of Russian disinformation on the election outcomes.
“Both me and my team readily acknowledged — to Trump and others in the USG [U.S. government] we briefed — that we could not say if this attempt by the Russians actually worked unless someone polled every single Trump voter to see if this disinformation was what led them to vote for Trump,” she stated.
Miller highlighted that she and her team had clearly stated to Trump himself that he was the country’s lawful commander in chief, a detail she noted was omitted by Gabbard.
In response to Miller’s defense of the original intelligence assessment, an Office of the Director of National Intelligence spokesperson, Olivia Coleman, stated that Miller is mistaken and referred to the findings in the declassified Republican House intelligence report as evidence.
Democratic lawmakers on the panel vocally rejected the Republican House report at the time. However, a bipartisan Senate probe released the same year affirmed the intelligence agencies’ findings that Russia had engaged in disinformation campaigns, leaking stolen emails from the Democratic Party to undermine Hillary Clinton and bolster Trump’s prospective candidacy.
Marco Rubio, serving as acting chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time, supported the conclusions of the Senate report.
When approached regarding Miller’s statements, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle remarked on Gabbard’s release of documents intended to show that the Obama administration was behind the so-called “Russia, Russia, Russia hoax,” indicating that those involved in purported criminal activities would face consequences under the law.
Former President Barack Obama’s spokesman, Patrick Rodenbush, responded to the claims by expressing outrage, stating, “These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.”
Prior to the 2016 election, intelligence reporting suggested that Russia was actively working to influence the election, Miller explained. Following the election, then-CIA Director John Brennan requested that Miller assemble a task force to investigate Russia’s involvement rigorously.
During her nearly four-decade tenure with the CIA, including nine tours abroad, Miller was the head of agency counterintelligence at the time. She constructed a team with diverse skills and expertise, bringing together analysts and counterintelligence officers to examine Russia’s role comprehensively.
Miller recounted the pressure they faced amid a politically polarized environment post-election, facing scrutiny from individuals both supportive and critical of Trump.
“There were people that hated Trump that wanted us to find that Trump was complicit. And there were those that loved Trump. They wanted us to find nothing. And we ignored all of it,” Miller said.
The objective was to remain neutral and allow the data to dictate their conclusions. “We just decided to let the data speak for itself. … We had very, very good data coming in,” she reiterated.
Miller clarified that during the assessment’s drafting process, Brennan did not impose pressure or micromanage the task force’s operations.
Gabbard, along with CIA Director John Ratcliffe and the White House, have accused Brennan of fabricating intelligence surrounding the 2016 election to undermine Trump, a claim Brennan has categorized as “baseless.”
The task force meticulously analyzed every conceivable angle, including speculation of collusion between Trump’s campaign and the Kremlin to influence the election outcome, yet found no substantive intelligence to support such a claim.
After extensive examination of the intelligence and publicly available information, the team concluded that Russia had conducted a large-scale information warfare campaign aimed at undermining American democracy, damaging Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, and boosting Trump’s electoral chances.
Miller summarized the intelligence assessment, stating, “The paper was multiple pages long, but the summary of it is 100% they tried to influence the election, and 100% we can’t say if it worked unless we polled every voter.”
As the assessment neared completion and entered the editing phase, FBI Director James Comey insisted that the report incorporate a dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, despite concerns from CIA officials about its unverified content.
Miller expressed her irritation at the idea of including the uncorroborated dossier late in the process, arguing that it would require significant time to ascertain its validity.
Ultimately, a compromise was reached between the CIA and the FBI, resulting in the inclusion of the dossier in an annex to the assessment, accompanied by a disclaimer noting that the claims had not been verified by the intelligence community.
Miller recalled that she visited the CIA’s general counsel’s office after the assessment was published, where she was informed about potential criminal charges regarding her role in the report.
Initially assuming it was a joke, Miller soon realized it was serious and opted to hire a lawyer, although she was never informed of the specific criminal charge being considered.
This investigation was part of a broader inquiry led by special counsel John Durham examining how the previous administration managed investigations into Russian involvement in the election and ties with the Trump campaign.
Durham’s team interrogated Miller extensively, posing inquiries about any alleged anti-Republican sentiments that may have influenced her contributions to the assessment.
“I was answering questions like, ‘Tell us how you hate all Republicans, and that’s why you wrote this paper.’ Actually, if you look at my registration, I’m a Republican,” she clarified.
Despite the intense scrutiny, Miller was never charged with any offenses stemming from the situation, nor was she disciplined regarding the intelligence assessment. Subsequently, she retired during the Biden administration.
Recently, Ratcliffe declassified an internal “lessons learned” review analyzing the drafting of the intelligence assessment, which acknowledged that some standard procedures were not followed and that the report was completed hastily. However, it did not contest the assessment’s conclusions.
Miller noted that no one from the CIA reached out to her for the internal review. The CIA opted not to provide further comments on the situation.
Miller expressed concern that almost a decade after the 2016 election, the ongoing political turmoil in Washington regarding the issue is likely fueling satisfaction within Russia.
“Putin and his BFFs in the Kremlin are toasting vodka shots as we speak at the turmoil this is creating,” she concluded.
image source from：nbcnews
