We have been discussing the recently declassified material related to the Russian investigation, including disclosures of the role of former CIA director John Brennan at the end of the Obama Administration to reinforce the unfounded allegations of Russian collusion and influence. After an earlier intelligence assessment rejecting the narrative was effectively quashed, Brennan reportedly hand-picked the team to do a second rushed 2016 U.S. intelligence community assessment in the final days. We are now learning more about the person Brennan selected to head that team. Just the News and other outlets are revealing not just the extreme political bias of Susan Miller, but her remarkably poor handle on some key facts. The one unassailable fact that comes out of her postings is her declaration that “[I] am not a Trump fan.”
A review of Miller’s social media postings reveals intense hostility toward Donald Trump and his supporters, including calling the President a “dictator” and MAGA supporters “Nazis.” What is particularly notable is that she still maintains that the widely ridiculed Steele Dossier, secretly funded by the Clinton campaign, “might be true.” Despite the findings of the Special Counsel and various investigations, she has insisted that Trump may indeed be a “Russian asset” or a “Kremlin asset”
Miller recently retired but says that she continues to train CIA officers.
Brennan chose wisely if he wanted to ensure that a reliable political ally would draft the assessment. However, she has said that there were others in the CIA who wanted an actual finding that Trump’s election was illegitimate. That was the narrative pushed by Hillary Clinton and many Democrats after the 2016 loss. She suggested that that may still be true, a form of election denial that is still accepted on the left as they criticize Trump for his questioning of the 2020 defeat.
Miller appears to be one of the last diehards claiming that the Steele dossier could have also repeatedly still proved correct in its allegations.
Some interviews are striking in their conflicting elements, like insisting “all of us went in with a completely open mind” but that “they [the Russians] definitely wanted him [Trump].”
Miller also seemed to view the CIA’s role as part of a resistance, or at least counterforce to Trump: “I headed up the report team. … I wanted people who would speak truth to power.”
On social media, Miller comes across as unhinged at times in responding to stories with screeds like “This is awful! Further proof that Trump is a dictator.” She also wrote, “Good grief. As if we needed proof that MAGA types are nazis…”
She responded to a foreign poster by saying, “Yes….the Hitler analogy is not lost on a bunch of us…..sadly….”
In one of the most bizarre series of statements, Miller accuses Trump, Barr, and Durham of putting “me on trial” because she was interviewed in the various investigations.
She insisted in an interview with Times Radio in July that Trump got Barr and Durham “to open a trial on us…I spent 8 hours on trial; other team members also had trials. Not unexpectedly, nothing criminal was found.”
Just the News notes that Miller said again in June that “Trump put me on trial….criminal complaint after inauguration.” There is no indication of what that criminal complaint entailed, where it was filed, or what happened to it.
Miller appears to be struggling to make the case against Brennan and herself in carrying out this intelligence assessment. It is telling that, within the entire CIA establishment, Brennan would select Miller for this controversial report.
What is even more chilling is that top intelligence officials would continue to cling to debunked sources like Steele. It is the kind of intransigence common among those living in echo chambers created by news and social media sites. CIA analysts are supposedly trained to avoid such confirmation bias.
All of this makes for a great pitch to join figures like Clapper or McCabe with MSNBC or CNN contracts. It is less compelling in defending the work product of the CIA on this report.
George the serial LIAR
Please educate yourself, and save us all the trouble of doing it for you.
18 U.S.C. 1621 (CH 79) Perjury Generally
Whoever—
having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; OR
in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.
George the serial liar, is the moon made of cheese?
Better put that in lay terms for Georgie
Anyone lying under oath OR anyone lying on any form under penalty of perjury, is guilty of PERJURY.
Thats what it says, Georgie. Can you comprehend it, serial liar?
By the way, Georgie, where did you even get the idea that
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined these statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and complete.
means “You can lie here, but you better not do it in court, or you’ll be guilty of perjury.”?
Where did you get that??? Do you even see how stupid you look?? Do you even care???
18 U.S.C. § 1001 (False Statements) – The primary statute for this conduct:
• Covers knowingly and willfully making false statements on federal forms/documents
• Felony punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment
• Applies to executive, legislative, and judicial branch documents
• No need to be under oath
FBI loves to use this.. Any small mistake or “little white lie” or even phrasing actual truth in a way to “shade” or spin can land you in jail if the FBI doesn’t get what it wants. Of course, it isn’t applied in any way equally in political “investigations.”