Mike, can you give references for the assertions contained in the paragraph "Seth Rich and his fellow corpses"?
You evidently have been following this far more closely than I!
Thank you, Keith

Mike, if you don't mind a little criticism, here is some.
Your remarks are in italics; my responses are in brackets.

The point here is that the DNI’s public report does not prove that the Russians gave the documents to Julian Assange.
[Of course.
If the IC did have proof that the Russians gave the documents to Julian Assange,
it is almost certain that that proof
would be at a level of classification far above Top Secret,
and thus would have been omitted from the public report.]
What the report does is assert that there is a Russia-Assange joint operation against — not America — but Hillary Clinton.
This is the sort of sophomoric phenomenon that is often seen in the work of novice intelligence analysts,
and it is usually called “Analysis by Assertion”.
[Again, of course.
When a full intelligence analysis is sanitized for dissemination beyond those cleared for knowledge of sources and methods,
what is generally left is conclusions, not what led to those conclusions.
It is “Analysis by Assertion” because the supporting material has been omitted.
So far as I know,
no one outside of the currently indoctrinated (that's a technical term here)
knows whether there is sufficient material to support the DNI’s public report.]

P.S. Your comments, if any, on the report from the IC on Russian interference in the American political process would be much appreciated.
My question:
How does what Russia is accused of differ from
what the U.S. routinely does in (or to) other states, including Russia?

Michael, might I bring to your attention two posts from Patrick Lang
that deal with the quality and character of IC leadership:
(post titles, date, html, and the relevant excerpt)

Manufactured hysteria - once again.
2017-01-06 http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyranni...
[T]he media now proclaim that
the Intelligence Community is a vessel of integrity and patriotic self-sacrifice
that, since it hints to us that "the Russians done it,"
must be believed without question.
Well, pilgrims, those who really know the Intelligence Community know that
these agencies are run be self-serving political hacks
who may once have been people of integrity
but who, by the time, they reach the top
will say or proclaim anything that advances their personal interest.

Trump and the IC "consultants."
2017-01-02 http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyranni...
They [the SES/SIS position holders at CIA/DIA/NSA, etc.]
are usually highly politicized schemers and enablers for their presidential appointee bosses at the very top of the food chain.

It seems Col. Lang agrees with your remarks in your reply to "Decoud".

Mike, a technical comment.
When your articles first appear on your website, so far as I can tell there is no Permalink available for them.
In particular, the title of the article is not a clickable link.
When they are no longer the top item, THEN a permalink becomes available, via the title of the article, which is then a clickable URL link.
Is it possible to fix this problem, so the Permalink becomes available as soon as they are published?
Thank you for your consideration, and your articles.

Thank you for pointing out that database.
It certainly is extensive.
However, I do not see where it addresses the motivations of the attackers.
For example, a search on the searchable data base at that URL for
data on the 2001-09-11 destruction of the World Trade Center
shows the names and some basic biographical data of those who conducted the attack,
but so far as I can see does not address their motivations.
(Am I missing something in that database?)
Where does it, for that seminal attack, speak to the motivations of the attackers?
That is the crucial point,
because we have seen the "elite" doing everything they can to assert that
the attackers are motivated by
facts about the West that we do not desire to change,
rather than, as you pointed out, and as Dr. Scheuer has so frequently pointed out,
the Western (mainly Israel and the U.S.) intervention in the Muslim world.
For example, the Washington Post on 2016-06-15 ran an article suggesting it's all a matter of self-hatred:
"Displaced hatred of self can push people to massacres, psychologists say"!
So much for needing to address the West's policies in the Middle East!

First, I totally agree with all the comments you have made in the past
about how terrible it is that "elite" opinion-leaders have failed to tell the truth
about the motivations of those who have been committing these acts of terrorism.
And with your point (a) in your penultimate paragraph.

Now those opinion-leaders seem to be continuing their campaign of obfuscation,
e.g. Peter Bergen's 2016-06-15 column http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/opinion/why-do-....

But now let me ask you a very serious and, I believe, important question:

Is there any site available on the Web that provides a list of terrorist acts
with, most importantly,
an accurate estimate as to what the motivation for that act was?

Examples:
1. After the December 2015 San Bernardino killings,
there was at least one news report that a relative of the male shooter said
he was motivated by the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
But that does not now seem to be discussed.
2. I believe the people who carried out the November 2015 Paris bombings
were quoted as saying
they were carrying out a reprisal for the Western bombings of ISIS.
Again, that point of view seems now not to be reported by the MSM,
not to mention being unmentionable by the politicians.
3. The April 2013 Boston bombers.
Were they not also motivated by U.S. attacks in the Middle East?
Again, a point ignored by the MSM and the politicians.

And of course Exhibit A for ignoring what Muslims have said
was the motivation for their terrorism against Western targets was
Osama bin Laden's statement that
Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon provided motivation for 9/11: http://kwharbaugh.blogspot.com/2005/09/lebanon-19...

So, please, sir, is there any web site that,
in your far more knowledgeable than most opinion,
offers accurate and perceptive analyses of
what has motivated these, and other, past examples of terrorism?

Patrick Buchanan was without doubt the real deal: he truly believed what he said both verbally and in his many books, such as A Republic Not An Empire.
My impression of Trump is that he is a mere salesman, whose goal is to make the sale, nothing more or longer-lasting.
He is not committed to the ideas he expresses and the goals he holds up.
His claims about what he will accomplish if he is elected don't pass the laugh test.
Exhibit A: His claim that if elected, there will be a wall protecting the U.S. from Mexico which the Mexicans will pay for.
And on the foreign policy front, it seems to me that his speech put him squarely in the Israel-First camp (presumably influenced by his son-in-law).
Not the change that is so badly needed.
Or did I miss something?

Please note also the following:
Hillary Has an NSA Problem
by John R. Schindler, 2016-03-18.
It contains a detailed analysis of the depth and seriousness of the breaches of security.
The problems are not just the insecurity of HRC's communication methods,
but how some of the information in those communications got out of the compartmented world.

It sounds like former DIA chief Michael Flynn is now on the same page with you http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/01/politics/michael-fl...

"I think the narrative was that al Qaeda was on the run, and (Osama) bin Laden was dead. ... They're dead and these guys are, we've beaten them," Flynn said --
but the problem was that
no matter how many terrorist leaders they killed,
they "continue to just multiply."

...

Flynn has been a vocal critic of the Obama and Bush administrations since leaving his job overseeing the Defense Intelligence Agency last year.
Flynn told the German news outlet Der Spiegel on Sunday http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/former-...
that
removing Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Moammar Gadhafi in Libya destabilized the region.

"It was huge error. As brutal as Saddam Hussein was,
it was a mistake to just eliminate him.
The same is true for Moammar Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state.
The historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq.
History will not be and should not be kind with that decision,"
Flynn said.

Sure sounds to me like what you said in Marching Towards Hell,
and in this blog and in many other places.

Your comment, sir?