inclusion of Steele dossier allegations in the ICA was, among other things, a massive intel failure, which, additionally, was in violation of IC standards. Did IG Michael Atkinson investigate this failure? Why not? Where is report? How did failure occur?

2/ let me explain the connection of Steele dossier to an intel failure. First, here's an interesting statement that "traditional NSC staffers believe deeply in the 'policy process'" in context of their disdain for Trump.
https://politi.co/2Ny8ywk 

3/ but this raises obvious question: was "time-tested" "policy process" followed by NSC when Steele dossier allegations included in ICA? Was there "proper set of meetings", "rigorous legal review"? If not, why not?

4/ as an editorial comment before reviewing these issues, if "traditional NSC staffers" failed to comply with "time-tested policy process" in preparing ICA that sabotaged incoming Trump admin, they can hardly expect new admin not to be suspicious of them.

5/ Michael Morell, referring to process, said it would be "extraordinary if not unprecedented to bring to the attention of a president and ¬president-elect a private document for which you had no reason to believe allegations".
http://archive.is/0UzMO 

6/ in other words, Morell was adding fuel to the Steele dossier fraud by telling the world that the very inclusion of such allegations required that the agencies have "reason to believe", presumably after "time-tested process" and "rigorous legal review"

7/ in last few weeks, we now have (after years of obfuscating, concealment by intel community) a clear idea of provenance of key Steele allegations of primary concern in ICA. I'll review a couple, then how they got incorporated in ICA and why it was, among things, intel failure

8/ sometime between ~July 21 and 25, 2016, according to his FBI evidence, Igor Danchenko got an anonymous call from Russian male, who said that there had been communication between Trump and Kremlin, but "nothing bad". (Wikileaks had dropped DNC emails on Jul 22).

9/ on or about Jul 25, apparently just in time for Robbie Mook's talk show apppearance, Steele issued report with explanation of events that, by coincidence or not, was exactly what Dems wanted to hear. Within hours of Wikileaks drop, Steele had (or purported to have) deep

10/ source who revealed everything: that Russia was behind the DNC hack and leak, that they had conspired with Trump campaign which, in exchange for Russian active measure, undertook to remove sanctions. And much more. (Sanctions, of course, also later being in attack on Flynn).

11/ Steele's report on conspiracy (#95) included breadcrumbs pointing to Sergei Millian as the deep source, though, at the time Danchenko had not actually made contact with Millian, who was in Asia for most of last half of July on business trip.

12/ Danchenko told the FBI that he "believed" that the anonymous call came from Millian (notwithstanding Millian being in Asia). It ought to have been pretty easy for FBI to verify if Millian made a call to Danchenko from Asia between Jul 21 and Jul 25, but crickets so far.

13/ checking out this anonymous call also seems like it ought to have been routine due diligence for the "time-tested process" and "rigorous" review of an intel assessment. It was worse. FBI didn't even bother interviewing Danchenko until AFTER presentation of ICA.

14/ indeed, it seems to have been a question from Flynn that precipitated interview. At Jan 6 meeting, one of Trump team (reportedly Flynn) asked about Steele sources and sub-sources. On Jan 7, Comey sent out memo. By Jan 13, Danchenko, resident of northern Virginia contacted

15/ @DavidLaufman, author of prior immunity deals for Hillary henchmen Huma Abedin and Better Call Cheryl, gave immunity deal to Danchenko, who then revealed fantasies of Steele dossier were even worse than could be imagined.

16/ but back to the ICA process: while Danchenko's information was in the near future, FBI hadn't bothered getting his evidence when they were contributing to the ICA.