CIA Officer's Social Media Exposes Anti-Trump Bias in 2016 Russiagate Report

Background on Susan Miller and Her Role in the 2016 ICA

Susan Miller, a former CIA counterintelligence officer, has recently come under scrutiny for her public comments about former President Donald Trump. She claimed to have played a significant role in leading the 2016 U.S. Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which examined allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election. However, her history of expressing strong opinions about Trump has raised questions about her objectivity.

Miller's remarks were initially reported by Just The News and later verified by the Daily Caller. During a May article in the New York Times, she expressed concern over the dismantling of an investigative team within the FBI, calling it “awful” and suggesting it was further proof that Trump was acting like a dictator. This sentiment was echoed in her LinkedIn posts, where she described Trump as lacking empathy and having a high regard for dictators.

Social Media Comments and Controversial Statements

In addition to her comments about Trump, Miller made several other controversial statements on social media. She responded to a Washington Post article by suggesting that Trump’s actions were indicative of a lack of empathy and that he had “dictator envy.” She also agreed with a post that compared Trump to Hitler, stating that the analogy was not lost on many people.

Another notable comment came when she referred to supporters of Trump as “MaGa types,” labeling them as Nazis. This occurred in response to an article about the firing of the CIA’s top doctor, Terry Adirim, who was involved in a lawsuit alleging political extremism. Miller criticized the situation, saying, “Good grief. As if we needed proof that MaGa types are nazis… calling for her death??! So wrong. I hope she is okay.”

She also supported a post that described Trump and Elon Musk as “unAmerican and unpatriotic” for their treatment of federal workers. Despite this, she clarified that she was not a fan of Trump and had previously called him “our Dear Leader,” claiming he wanted to “rule … the world.”

Claims About Trump and the ICA Investigation

In a recent interview with Times Radio, Miller claimed that Trump harassed her team during the investigation into Russian influence in the 2016 election. She suggested that Trump wanted to be “very much like Putin, sort of a president for life.” This statement adds to the ongoing debate about the nature of the ICA and the potential influence of political bias on intelligence assessments.

Miller also addressed her initial support for Trump, stating that she was originally a pro-Trump Republican and even voted for him in his first election. She criticized the tone of some comments directed at her, claiming they were “mean spirited and uninformed.” She noted that the Constitution limits the president to two terms and that Trump was already talking about a third. She also mentioned that she refused to include the unverified Steele Dossier in the report because it could not be corroborated.

The Role of the Steele Dossier in the ICA

During a July podcast with “SpyTalk,” Miller discussed the process of the ICA investigation. She stated that her team approached the investigation with a “completely open mind” and that they aimed to tell the truth based on their findings. She emphasized that they sought out personnel who would challenge her perspective, ensuring a balanced approach.

Miller claimed that her team found evidence that Russia preferred a Trump presidency in 2016 but did not find evidence that Trump knowingly collaborated with the Kremlin. She explained that the team included the unverified Steele Dossier in the final report because the FBI would not approve the report without its inclusion. She admitted she did not have time to verify the dossier’s claims before publication and said she had not confirmed or denied the sources in the dossier.

Ongoing Questions About Trump and Alleged Russian Ties

When asked by Times Radio if she had seen any evidence that Trump was a Kremlin asset, Miller responded that she had seen “some things” and was still evaluating whether they were true. She added that there was information that “makes it look like he could be.” These comments continue to fuel the debate over the extent of Trump’s ties to Russia and the reliability of intelligence assessments.

Overall, Miller’s statements and actions highlight the complex and often contentious nature of intelligence work, particularly in politically charged environments. Her public comments reflect a deep-seated skepticism toward Trump and raise important questions about the integrity of intelligence assessments.