More from the IG report

The info below is all legalese.  I'm posting it so it doesn't get lost in the avalanche of damning information in the IG report.

Among many other things, the IG found that with regard to the decisions by Comey and other FBI officials regarding the sham "investigation" into Hilliary's email server, the FBI violated its normal procedures time after time, always to Clinton's benefit, as follows (quoting IG report):

• The alleged "investigators" didn't try to obtain every device, including those of Clinton’s senior aides, or the contents of every email account through which a classified email may have traversed.  We found that the reasons for not doing so were based on limitations the team imposed on the investigation’s scope, the desire to complete the investigation well before the election, and the belief that the foregone evidence was likely of limited value.  We further found that those reasons were, in part, in tension with Comey’s response in October 2016 to the discovery of [hundreds of thousands of] Clinton emails on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, the husband of Clinton’s former Deputy Chief of Staff and personal assistant, Huma Abedin;

Comey would later claim he didn't know Weiner was married to Abedin.  More on that later.

• Considered but ultimately declined to review certain highly classified materials that may have included information potentially relevant to the investigation.

• Gave "letter use immunity" to three witnesses in exchange for their testimony.  Although normal bureau procedure regarding immunity is that it's only offered in exchange for specific testimony of great benefit to the government in filing charges against officials higher up the chain, in this case no useful testimony was either offered or obtained from any of the immunized witnesses.   This baffling departure from procedure was never seriously questioned, nor explained.

• Used consent agreements and “act of production” immunity to obtain laptops used by Mills and Samuelson, in part to avoid the uncertainty and delays of a potential motion to quash any subpoenas or search warrants.  We found that these decisions were occurring at a time when Comey and the Midyear team had already concluded that there was likely no prosecutable case [i.e. before they had even interviewed Hilliary] and believed it was unlikely the culling laptops would change the outcome of the investigation;

• We found that by the date of [Clinton's] interview... Comey had oncluded that the evidence did not support criminal charges (absent a confession or false statement by Clinton during the interview), and that the interview had little effect on the outcome of the investigation; and

• Allowed Mills and Samuelson to attend the Clinton interview as Clinton’s counsel, even though they also were fact witnesses, because the Midyear team determined that the only way to exclude them was to subpoena Clinton to testify before the grand jury, an option that we found was not seriously considered.  We found no persuasive evidence that Mills’s or Samuelson’s presence influenced Clinton’s interview.  Nevertheless, we found the decision to allow them to attend the interview was inconsistent with typical investigative strategy.

Again, the above stuff probably won't seem significant unless you have some legal experience.  But it's such a huge red flag--it strongly supports the theory that Comey and the team had already predetermined that they were gonna clear Hilliary regardless of what the facts showed.  (The other strong pieces of evidence being a) that Comey drafted the clearing speech months before even interviewing Hilliary; b) that the FBI only finally interviewed Hilliary 3 days before Comey testified to the House committee, stating he was clearing her, meaning no one in the bureau would have had time to analyze her responses for contradictions or lies; c) that when the FBI finally did interview Hilliary, the interview was not done under oath, nor was it recorded either on audio or by human stenographer, meaning if she slipped up, no one could later prove what she said.

All those things are consistent with the theory that the investigation was a sham, with the result having been decided beforehand.  No honest, impartial investigation would have done any of those things.