Mmm... I have posted the Mueller Report terms of reference equivalent which prescribe what the investigation can cover.
the Senate report covers a fair bit more ground for a few reasons. For one thing, it was not limited to information it could prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court, as Mueller was.
Just as important, the committee included counterintelligence questions in its investigative remit—whereas Mueller limited himself to a review of criminal activity.
But here’s a few good links to help understand the report findings
https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/guid ... collusion/
That the trott did not exonerate Trump
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.bbc ... a-42493918
What is incontrovertible:
“The Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election,” the report, which was co-signed by both Democrats and Republicans on the Senate committee, says.
“Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president” to WikiLeaks.
Null you asked about national security threat, the Senate Intelligence Committee found hundreds of actions connected with Russian interference with the 2016 election.
The report describes hundreds of actions by Trump, his campaign, and his associates in the run-up to the 2016 election that involve some degree of participation by Trump or his associates in Russian activity.
Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chair, comes under heavy criticism in the report for his “willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services” — this “represented a grave counterintelligence threat.”
Great overview here:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/collusion-r ... ittee-find
Where the pubs asserts the Senate Intel Committee Report shows no “collusion”. The term collusion has no agreed meaning in law rendering it a pursuit in futility.
The Dems conclusion:
The Committee's bipartisan Report unambiguously shows that members of the Trump Campaign cooperated with Russian efforts to get Trump elected.
It recounts efforts by Trump and his team to obtain dirt on their opponent from operatives acting on behalf of the Russian government. It reveals the extraordinary lengths by which Trump and his associates actively sought to enable the Russian interference operation by amplifying its electoral impact and rewarding its perpetrators—even after being warned of its Russian origins.
And it presents, for the first time, concerning evidence that the head of the Trump Campaign was directly connected to the Russian meddling through his communications with an individual found to be a Russian intelligence officer.
Law Fares conclusions aligns objectively with the above perspective:
To read these thousand pages and come away with the conclusion that they amount to evidence of “no collusion” really involves a protestation of faith, not a dispassionate assessment of presented evidence. As we said at the outset, debating what constitutes “collusion” is not worth anyone’s time, given that the word has no agreed-upon meaning in this context and that to say that there was none of it doesn’t answer in any event the more important question of what the facts amount to.
These they assert are the key facts/findings
Here are the conclusions we believe the Intelligence Committee’s evidence supports:
1.
The Trump campaign and Donald Trump himself were certainly aware in real time of Russian efforts to intervene in the 2016 presidential election.
The campaign had a heads-up that Russia had stolen Democratic emails. And Russian operatives sought and received a meeting with senior Trump campaign officials promising “dirt” on Trump’s opponent. As the campaign wore on, and the Russian efforts were increasingly made public,
Trump personally and publicly encouraged them.
2. The Trump campaign was run for a time by a man with an ongoing business
relationship with a Russian intelligence operative, to whom he gave proprietary internal polling data.
3. The
Trump campaign did not discourage Russian activity on its behalf. In fact, it sought repeatedly to coordinate its messaging around WikiLeaks releases of information. The campaign, and Trump personally, sought to contact WikiLeaks to receive information in advance about releases and may well have succeeded.
4.
The campaign sought to obtain disparaging information about Hillary Clinton from actors who either were Russian operatives or it believed were Russian operatives. It did so through a number of means—some of these efforts were direct. Some were indirect.
5. The Russian government and affiliated actors clearly regarded the Trump campaign as a prime target for influence and recruitment.
Russia targeted a diverse array of people associated with Trump for contact and engagement through an astonishing variety of avenues. Some of these attempts were rebuffed.
Many of them were successful. The result was a sustained degree of engagement between the campaign, and later the transition, and Russian officials and cutouts.
6. Trump’s personal and business history in Russia provided a significant opportunity for kompromat. Such material was very likely collected. There is less evidence that it was ever deployed,
though Trump’s mere awareness of his vulnerability gives rise to substantial counterintelligence concerns.
7.
Trump’s active pursuit of business deals in Russia while running for president and denying any such deals created significant counterintelligence risk.
8. Trump’s campaign, and later transition, were
filled with a remarkable number of people who had secret interactions with Russian actors, about which they lied either in real time or in retrospect.
9.
All of this activity, particularly cumulatively, amounts to a grave set of counterintelligence concerns, in which any number of Trump campaign figures—including the candidate himself—exposed themselves to potential coercive pressure from an adversary foreign actor.
10.
Trump to this day will not criticize Russian President Vladimir Putin or acknowledge unambiguously Russian intervention in the 2016 election.