If you ignore the insanely biased commentary....this article is full of a lot of good factual information, although little of it is direct. It is mostly some biased douche's recounting of cherry picked stuff without sources.

This article is full of good information about how the DOJ, Intelligence, and other government agencies specifically responsible for protecting federal property and against organized threats did their jobs, on their own, without being pushed to do so in a particular way by political leaders. It talks about what they did in response to the massive riots of wide spread attacked on America and national security threat, that destroyed and occupied several federal buildings and historic monuments.

The scale of the riot attacks warranted serious multi-agency investigation to determine if they were being coordinated, as it appeared to by anyone paying attention. Their was also serious concern that foreign nations were leveraging the negativity against our country's sovereignty. They failed to find evidence of coordination, but officially found, without political influence, Antifa to be a large coordinated group behind some of the wide spread attack.

This article highlights the fine line between protecting our national security, our federal buildings, and our police officers and respecting the rights of the public to protest. The article is tries to criticize law enforcement for how they responded to these huge threats. There is plenty to criticize, but with massive, violent, long-term take-overs of our federal buildings, creating deadly battle zones on American land, one expects a tactical militarized response to the domestic terrorism, restoring safety and security to the public. It's just no one will be able to agree where the line should be drawn.

The article injects a huge amount of twisted bias. It tries to criticize the intelligence and law-enforcement response specifically to the domestic terrorism as a demonizing of protesters.

The article is completely oblivious to how this criticism, whether you agree with it or not, is much much more applicable to the Jan 6 US Capitol protesters.

Speaking of the injected twisted bias....when you read it, did you notice the article and its tone's impact your mood, your state of mind? Did it make you angry, upset? Where you at times so angry you couldn't continue reading? Did you read portions, thinking, 'yeah that seems like a reasonable expected law-enforcement response,' while simultaneously feeling upset about it?

I suspect this article may have been weaponized (with AI). While the weaponizing techniques can be done by hand, with think tanks and test audiences, such efforts are what AI is good for automating.

I urge you to assess this article, separating the neutrally written factual narrative, from the emotion stoking buzzwords, hyperbole, gaslighting of projected sinister motivations for actions/responses, bullying, name calling, and team grouping. These types of mental attacks are grounded in psychology.

I found what I thought to be a neutral fact based article, which had been later injected with these mental attacks. Even more interesting, was noticing the level of attack varying intelligently throughout the article. The article started out with the mental attacks cranked up figuratively to 100%, with full on extreme bias, gas lighting, and emotional fire-storm. This lasted for quite awhile, probably the first 20% of the article, priming the readers of the full article, and being the only take away from most readers who only read a few paragraphs and leave. This section had very few actual facts and was mostly a biased rant. There were was little information to take away from this section. The mental attack in this beginning section was so extreme, I suspect many even those who were staunchly supportive or staunchly against the events, parties, and politics involved - meaning every spectrum of ideology - likely became so very upset by this mental attack, that they could not finish reading. I suspect very few reads where able to finish the latter 80%, leaving only mentally scarred, with no information, and with only a meme-like anger of how to feel about the findings.

After this first high intensity mental attack section, priming the full article readers and getting the biggest bang out of passing casual first few paragraph readers, the mental attack intensity dropped down pretty low, like only 20%. From here on it was a neutrally written fact based article, with a few biased twangs and a sentence or two of mental attack injected every few sentences. This seemed aimed at allowing the factual information room to be expressed, but attempted to maintain the level of emotional derangement the priming had achieved, without letting it drop too low. Here you find the facts are largely contradicting the almost all the previous first section and the completely debunks the title's spin. Although you read it and realize that is deflates, if not debunks the early spin, you find it hard not to still be emotionally upset and angry at the events you are reading, despite realizing they are a mostly routine, reasonable, and expected response.

The article finished out with a less aggressive and more standard, seemingly personally written, super-biased wrap up spin. It does common propaganda techniques, such as gaslighting that homeland security and law enforcement should have not been concerned with their immediate duties of arresting law breakers and protecting security, but instead ignore their duties to attempt to correct the fundamental long term issues at cause of excessive police violence and its racial disproportions. The official intelligence findings were of a serious threat from Antifa, which was a visible and frequent presence, but the writer goes on to gaslight that this was a made up bogey man and their existence a conspiracy theory, concocted as a fear tactic by Trump. Despite reporting that this determination was done by intelligence without influence, the writer projects that the Trump-aligned director pushed it.

The closing statement of the article is a lie pretending it wasn't true and was "Russian disinformation", when Graham exposed emerging facts just before the 2020 election, about Hillary's foreign bought 'Big Lie' that manipulated the 2016 election, along with new discoveries pointing to it being a preconceived Hillary campaign trick to tie Trump in a nefarious way to the DNC emails with the password "password" being hacked or leaked. The reports at the time all concluded it to be likely true based on evidence, but "Russian Disinformation: It Doesn’t Matter If It’s True."