What a pointed title. That aside, I am rather surprised that a committee's investigation report is this light on what in my opinion are fundamental details, including the make-up of the committee, the members' respective duties and the course of the investigative process. Notwithstanding the potentially political raison d'etre of the report, is that customary for Congressional committees?
The gripe I have with this is that it is 1) an impermanent external resource that shows 2) the current, not the contemporary make-up of the commitee that's 3) subject to change at any time, and thus not a lasting appendix to the report. I guess I had expected more academic rigour from a congressional committee.
