Ex-CIA Official Accuses Gabbard and White House of Misleading the Public on 2016 Russian Interference Intel

A former CIA officer, Susan Miller, recently spoke out about the ongoing debate regarding Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. She claims that assertions from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and the White House are misleading. Miller, who contributed to the intelligence assessment of Russia’s actions, argues that the data clearly showed Moscow aimed to help Donald Trump, but there was no evidence of collusion between Trump’s team and the Kremlin.

Miller’s insights come on the heels of Gabbard’s accusations that the intelligence report was based on “manufactured” information intended to undermine Trump’s victory. Gabbard referenced a Republican report asserting that there was insufficient evidence to suggest Russia tried to favor Trump.

Miller strongly disagrees. She emphasized, “We had solid intel indicating the Russians wanted Trump elected.” She further asserted that while they couldn’t assess the impact of Russian disinformation on individual votes, the data was clear on their intentions.

Context matters here. Prior to the 2016 election, intelligence reports indicated that Russia was spreading disinformation. Post-election, Miller led a task force to delve deeper into this issue, navigating a highly polarized political environment. She noted the pressure from both Trump supporters and critics, but emphasized that the team remained focused on the facts, stating, “We let the data speak for itself.”

In a bipartisan Senate inquiry later, similar conclusions were reached, reinforcing that Russia did indeed engage in information warfare to sway public opinion.

Interestingly, historical patterns show that foreign interference in elections isn’t new. During the Cold War, for example, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union attempted to manipulate foreign elections to bolster their own interests. The tools may have changed, but the tactics of disinformation and influence remain remarkably consistent.

In today’s world, social media has amplified these tactics. A recent survey found that about 64% of Americans are very concerned or somewhat concerned about misinformation online—a stark reminder of how crucial it is to critically evaluate information sources.

Miller’s experience reflects the complexities of intelligence work amidst a politically charged atmosphere. She faced scrutiny during her career, particularly when the Trump administration began questioning the integrity of the CIA assessments.

What stands out is the ongoing debate in political circles about the validity and motivations behind intelligence reports—as well as the impact on public perception. As Miller noted, “The ongoing turmoil only serves those who wish to see division in the U.S.,” pointing to how geopolitical players may take advantage of national discord.

Understanding the intricacies of these allegations helps demystify the broad narrative surrounding foreign influence in our elections today. It’s essential to remain vigilant and seek out credible information while recognizing the potential for misuse in political discourse.

Source link