1) Actually, I don't really think the Senate Intel report deserves much attention. But since this was brought up, allow me to explain why.
2) From the start, the S Intel investigation was an exercise in Burr-Warner pretending to be the last "grown ups" in the room (yay, bipartisan), even as they produced a report that was the least grown-up of any committee in Congress.
3) Leaders like @ChuckGrassley @DevinNunes and @SenRonJohnson dug in, unraveled all-important facts: Clinton's involvement in dossier; Steele leaking; Strzok's bias; Russian disinformation. Burr spent four years under Warner direction, and revealed nothing. As D's hoped.
4) The result is the absurdity of today's 5th volume. Here we have a report with a last section that admits Steele's dossier was complete BS, even as the first 3/4 of report is spent looking into those very claims. Maybe take a stand? Find fault? Lay blame where it belongs?
5) But no. We have a report that lets chairmen pat each other, look "serious," get media kudos for not digging. It smears Trump campaign officials with innuendo. It can't establish any crime, just like Mueller couldn't, but throws out D conspiracy theories--to keep peace.
6) Note that every R beside Burr and Collins signed an "additional views" section pointing out report's faults. Including "acting chairman" Rubio. Every D other than Warner (and independent King) signed a section that claimed--against all evidence--that Trump colluded with Russia
So much for "bipartisanship"-- other than among self-promoting committee figureheads. So please don't tell me this is serious work, that produced serious information or serious recommendations. I'll wait for Durham.
