How did the GOP senators do? Josh Hawley--a very smart lawyer but without prosecutorial experience--got high marks for aggressively challenging Yates' non-credible denials that she knew, well, anything.
Lindsey Graham, on the other hand, has had extensive prosecutorial experience and has demonstrated that he's an adept cross examiner when he wants to be. After rewatching a portion of his questioning it strikes me that we need to ask ourselves exactly what Graham--as, in my view, the lead questioner--was trying to accomplish.
I have in the past suggested, repeatedly, that Graham coordinates his committee's activities with regard to the Russia Hoax with AG Bil Barr. In other words, Graham makes sure that he does nothing that might involve stepping on John Durham's toes in any way. And that means that Graham calls no witnesses until he gets a go ahead from Barr and Durham.
From this standpoint, what would be the purpose of these witness inteviews and, in particular, the Yates interview. Obviously it satisfies the senatorial need for a certain amount of grandstanding for their constituents. Beyond that, I suggest the serious purposes are strictly limited--no one should expect any witness before the senate to break down and abjectly admit to criminal wrongdoing. That happens in movies or on TV, and it may happen in plea negotiations, but Graham's goal in questioning Yates yesterday were likely more modest and closely circumscribed after consultation with Barr. Those purposes may well have been achieved in Graham's questioning.
What Graham was able do was to lock Yates in to a handful of fundamental admissions: She accepts the findings of the Horowitz report and would never have signed the Carter Page FISA application if she had known then what she admits now: that it was a fraud on the FISC.
At this point we don't know what Durham and Barr may have in mind for Sally Yates, but one thing I think we can be sure of: If she is at risk of prosecution it will almost certainly be with regard to the Carter Page FISA--more so than the Flynn case. By locking Yates in, under oath, to the position that she signed a fraudulent FISA application, Graham ensures that if Yates ever takes the stand in a court she will be left with only one defense: that she signed the Carter Page FISA application in good faith. Working against that defense could be other witnesses who may have already cooperated with Durham: James Baker, Trisha Anderson (who has testified in the past that Yates read the FISA application "line by line"), and even Andrew McCabe, who might take exception to being left holding the bag by himself.
All of these witnesses--and quite possibly more--may be in a position to testify that, contrary to Yates's claims of ignorance, Yates was intimately involved in vetting an application that she has now admitted was fraudulent. It's true that Yates probably has going for her the presumed fact that she was not aware of the results of the Danchenko interview (Yates was fired on January 30, 2017). That, however, is by no means a complete defense for someone who signed a document that claims to have been verified and factual to the best of the signer's knowledge. Not if she was as intimately involved in the process as these other witnesses likely will be able to say that she was.
That doesn't necessarily mean Yates will be prosecuted. Durham may, for example, hold prosecution over her as a threat to induce Yates to provide other relevant testimony. If so, Graham's question may have served a purpose.
Now, watch this brief clip of Graham questioning Yates. Note that, without raising his voice, he boxes Yates in to the position that he wants her in, and she wants to avoid. Note also the expression on Devin Nunes' face at the end of the video segment--he seems to understand what's going on. Start at 6:50: