The team’s work, which has never been reported, is just the latest example of how the Federal Bureau of Investigation was unable to predict — or prevent — the chaos that erupted at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Apparently blinded by a narrow focus on “lone wolf” offenders and a misguided belief that the threat from the far left was as great as that from the far right, the analysis and other new documents suggest, officials at the bureau did not anticipate or adequately prepare for the attack.

The story of the F.B.I.’s missteps in the weeks leading up to Jan. 6 was touched upon, but not fully explored, by the House select committee investigating Jan. 6 and may involve a mix of legal hurdles, institutional biases, and simple human error.(snip)

“If everybody knew and all the public knew that they were going to storm Congress, I don’t know why one person didn’t tell us,” Jennifer L. Moore, the top intelligence official at the F.B.I.’s Washington field office at the time, told congressional investigators. “Why didn’t we have one source come forward and tell me that?”

That the New York Times and Fox News are both advancing the story of the Clintons’ twisted and money-soaked dealings is a glory of modern journalism. Whether it’s Maddow raising an eyebrow over the arrangements or New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan ripping the “way it looked,” all the hand-wringing about media organizations’ arrangement with the heavily partisan Schweizer finds a rebuttal within the four corners of the stories themselves: Do they withstand scrutiny?

Brian Fallon, press secretary for the Clinton campaign, says no. In a story on Medium, he rips the New York Times piece for failing to furnish the goods. The tightly written opening paragraph:

Relying largely on research from the conservative author of Clinton Cash, today’s New York Times alleges that donations to the Clinton Foundation coincided with the U.S. government’s 2010 approval of the sale of a company known as Uranium One to the Russian government. Without presenting any direct evidence in support of the claim, the Times story — like the book on which it is based — wrongly suggests that Hillary Clinton’s State Department pushed for the sale’s approval to reward donors who had a financial interest in the deal. Ironically, buried within the story is original reporting that debunks the allegation that then-Secretary Clinton played any role in the review of the sale.