Why are people criticizing the senate report as having only relied on documents and not interviews? In the vast majority of situations documentary evidence is considered much stronger than interview evidence. To dismiss a conclusion because it was only based on documentary evidence is absurd. Such thinking would essentially say that the study of history is futile.

Sure, ideally you want both, but if you asked most prosecutors or trial attorneys to choose just one, they would almost always say “I’ll take the documents” over an interview or material produced in a deposition. Historians too. What a person writes on paper to a limited audience of like-minded colleagues at the time of an event is almost always going to give you more accurate insight into that event than interviewing the person years later about the event. That’s essentially a best practice of history, law, and journalism as people forget and lie all the time.