Here's a pretty good summary.

https://substack.com/@taibbi/note/c-136946177?r=1f4kyi

QUESTION: "Could you address what I’m seeing in the news that the current releases are contradicted by the congressional inquiry into Russian collusion? I believe one report said Rubio signed off on evidence of collusion. Did they not have access to these documents, or did they really focus on something else?"

ANSWER: "Once and for all, on the issue of the 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report declaring the existence of Trump-Russia collusion:

First of all, the existence of the report is by itself an indictment, if not proof, of the corruption of the original 2017 ICA. The political utility of the Senate report was a document asserting the existence of collusion that was not found by Mueller or Inspector General Horowitz - but came to the same conclusion as the 2017, only using completely different evidence. The 2017 ICA concluded Russia not only engaged in an “influence” campaign but did so to help Trump, but the sole evidence for this was the classified Steele material. That the Senate had to redo the entire enterprise without using the discredited original evidence is pretty damning.

Then there’s the evidence, or lack thereof. The SSCI’s whole case relies upon an assessment that Paul Manafort’s aide Konstantin Kilimnik is a “Russian intelligence officer.” The Committee never interviewed Kilimnik, despite two U.S. embassies (especially the Kiev embassy) having an extensive history of cooperation with him as a source of information. It doesn’t reveal the basis for its assessment. Furthermore the whole case for collusion rests on the idea that Kilimnik had access to special Trump campaign internal poll data, which (the absurd theory goes) he would have used to tell the GRU how and where best to deploy Facebook ads. However, it had no evidence of this, even saying, “The committee did not obtain reliable, direct evidence that Kilimnik and Manafort discussed the GRU hack-and-leak operation.” Remember also that Kilimnik was not part of the original ICA.

The SSCI report was at least the sixth or seventh different theory of collision. There was the alleged original predicate, that George Stephanopoulos had knowledge of Russian “dirt” on Hillary, a theory which the FBI abandoned in August of 2016, according to testimony by Andrew McCabe. The next theory was Carter Page as a cutout and conduit; the used that theory to secure FISA authority on him and by extension his contacts. That turned out not only to be bullshit, but a criminal act (the false assertion landed FBI official Kevin Clinesmith a criminal conviction). Then there was “Crossfire Razor,” the idea of Michael Flynn as the link, incidentally with multiple people as the suspected Russian contact - that went nowhere also. There was the Alfa Server theory, another elaborate hoax that went nowhere (atrump computers talking in code with Russian computers!). Then there was the ICA, which relied on the “well-developed conspiracy” of at least five years that also came from the Steele reports. That was false too, as was the pee tape/blackmail idea. Prosecutors then charged Roger Stone with being the link via Julian Assange, but screwed up the timeline and inadvertently proved Stone/Trump couldn’t have had foreknowledge (ask @Aaron Maté about that). The Guardian tried to claim Manafort was the mole, by saying he visited Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy, but that failed. There were theories about Oleg Deripaska, Rinat Akhmeshin, and Natalia Veselnitskaya, who by extraordinary coincidence met with Fusion-GPS the day before meeting Donald Trump, Jr. Mueller nixed that theory.

So who was left? Kilimnik. There’s no proof, just an assertion. But okay, let’s say it’s true. Let’s stipulate he is a GRU man! That still means the first 2-3 years of Russiagate were based on BS. It was fake, it was fake, it was fake, then finally it was true? Think about the logic of the conclusion arriving so far in advance of the evidence.

it’s all bunk, and not particularly sophisticated bunk either."