Eliza Collins

USA TODAY

The congressional investigations into allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election has taken two distinct paths. The Senate Intelligence Committee has quietly churned through its investigation with close bipartisan cooperation; the House Intelligence Committee's investigation has turned into a circus of dramatic revelations and partisan sniping. How did we get here?

Jan. 10

Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., announces that his panel will conduct an independent investigation of the intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia attempted to disrupt the U.S. election.

A few days letter he makes if official with Vice Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va., in a release.

The investigation will include:

• A review of the intelligence that informed the Intelligence Community Assessment “Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections;” • Counterintelligence concerns related to Russia and the 2016 U.S. election, including any intelligence regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns; • Russian cyber activity and other “active measures” directed against the U.S., both as it regards the 2016 election and more broadly.

Jan. 25

House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and ranking member Adam Schiff, D-Calif., announce that their committee has also opened an investigation into Russia’s involvement in the 2016 presidential campaign.

“This issue is not about party, but about country. The Committee will continue to follow the facts wherever they may lead,” they say in a joint statement.

The investigation includes:

• Russian cyber activity and other “active measures” directed against the U.S. and its allies; • Counterintelligence concerns related to Russia and the 2016 U.S. election, including any intelligence regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns; • The United States Government response to these Russian active measures and any impact they may have on intelligence relationships and traditional alliances; and • Possible leaks of classified information related to the Intelligence Community’s assessments of these matters.

March 4

In an early morning tweetstorm, President Trump accuses former president Barack Obama of wiretapping him in Trump Tower during the election.

Trump offers no evidence of his claim. Days later, White House press secretary Sean Spicer says that because Trump’s tweets used quotation marks, he didn’t actually mean wiretapping, but rather broad surveillance. Republicans in Congress struggle to defend the unsubstantiated claim.

March 15

Schiff and Nunes hold a joint press conference where they agree that Trump Tower was not wiretapped.

“I don’t think there was an actual tap of Trump Tower,” says Nunes, who was on Trump’s transition team and is a close ally.

But he doesn’t shut the door entirely on Trump’s claims.

“Are you going to take the tweets literally? And if you are, then clearly the president was wrong. But if you’re not going to take the tweets literally and if there’s a concern that the president has about other people, other surveillance activities, looking at him or his associates — either appropriately or inappropriately — we want to find that out,” he says.

March 16 and 17

Spicer says that Trump still stands by his allegations, and he reads a news report from Fox News commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano that accuses Obama of using Britain's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) to eavesdrop on Trump.

But in a press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Trump separates himself from the claim.

"We said nothing; all we did was quote a very talented legal mind,'' Trump says.

Still, Trump doubled down on claims that he had been wiretapped by saying: "As far as wiretapping by this past administration, at least we have something in common, perhaps.”

He was referring to past reports that Merkel’s cellphone had been monitored when Obama was president.

March 20

FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers attend a public hearing with the House Intelligence Committee.

Comey says for the first time that the FBI is looking into whether members of Trump’s campaign had been colluding with Russia. Comey also dismisses Trump’s claims of wiretapping.

March 22

Nunes holds a hastily scheduled press conference. He announces that he has viewed intelligence reports showing that communications involving members of Trump’s transition team were “incidentally collected” — meaning they would have been heard on wiretaps of foreigners under surveillance. Nunes says the collections appear to be legal but could be “inappropriate.”

Nunes then went to the White House to brief the president personally.

This is the first break between Nunes and Schiff. The Democrat holds a press conference of his own and says that he was not briefed by Nunes on the information before the chairman went directly to the president.

March 27

It is discovered that Nunes viewed the documents March 21 on the White House grounds. His spokesman says that he went to the White House complex, so he could “have proximity to a secure location where he could view the information provided by the source.”

Democrats begin to call on Nunes to step aside from the investigation. That night, Schiff calls on his counterpart to recuse himself.

Some Republicans raise questions about Nunes’ behavior. “I think there needs to be a lot of explaining to do. I’ve been around for quite a while and I’ve never heard of any such thing,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., says on CBS. McCain says Nunes needs to reveal his sources and work with the rest of his committee.

March 28

The Washington Postreports that former acting attorney general Sally Yates was warned that she could be blocked from testifying before of the House Intelligence Committee. Letters showed that Yates was notified by the Justice Department that some of the topics Yates would address in her testimony are covered by attorney-client privilege and therefore could be off limits. Nunes also cancels Yates’ public testimony.

March 29

The leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee hold a press conference that basically says, we’re the grown-ups in the room. Burr and Warner speak to reporters but refuse to address the caterwauling on the House side. The pair announces that they had seven staff members with security clearance working on the documents. They also say they have issued 20 interview requests and five have been scheduled. They make it clear the committee is working on a bipartisan basis.

March 30

The Senate Intelligence panel holds an open hearing on Russian interference, which they say is supposed to give historical and technical context to Russian actions. During the hearing, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who is a member of the committee, discloses that hackers had tried to access internal information from his presidential campaign.

Also Thursday,The New York Times names two White House officials who reportedly helped give the intelligence reports to Nunes, though Nunes and Spicer refuse to confirm or deny the reports.

The White House invites top members of the Senate and House Intelligence committees to come view documents that it says could show intelligence collected on Americans was “mishandled or leaked.” It is not clear whether those are the same documents that Nunes saw.

On Thursday night, The Wall Street Journal reports that Gen. Michael Flynn — the former national security adviser to Trump who resigned in February over controversy about his conversations with the Russian ambassador — has offered to be interviewed in exchange for immunity from prosecution.

March 31

Trump tweets that Flynn should ask for immunity to avoid a “witch hunt.”

But neither congressional committee nor the Justice Department is yet ready to discuss an immunity deal.