The IG report confirms anti-Trump acts; Lying Media says "Nothing to see here, citizen."

The long-awaited report by the DOJ Inspector-General was released Thursday-- something like 500 pages.  The IG was looking into whether the FBI intentionally mis-applied the law to wrongfully clear Hilliary Clinton for
   a) conducting all official State Department business from a private email account; and/or
   b) sending classified emails to or received them from that private, unsecured server.

The IG also investigated whether the FBI and DOJ
   c) tried to sabotage the Trump campaign before the election with claims of "collusion" with Russia and known-false claims of salacious behavior by Mr. Trump during a trip to Russia; and/or
   d) continued to sabotage the Trump administration after the election, by leaking to friendly journalists.

As you could guess, the Lying Media are already claiming the report shows NO bias or misconduce or corruption.  As emperor Obama once put it, "Not a smidgen of corruption."

Really?  The Wall Street Journal's Kim Strassel thinks that's nonsense--that the report laid out damning facts but then carefully used weasel-words to claim no "direct connection" between the political views of half a dozen verbose Trump-hating FBI employees--opinions explicitly captured in hundreds of official emails--and "the specific investigative decisions we reviewed.”

In fact the IG found FBI agents sent email after email--hundreds--expressing utter hate for Trump, and sympathy for Hilliary.  This is perfectly captured in the texts between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page saying "We need an insurance policy" to ensure Trump didn't win.  When Page freaks out that Mr. Trump might win the presidency and Strzok replied “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

And if you think "new" FBI director Chris Wray and his top staff weren't trying the damndest to hide this--to cover it up as much as they could--consider this:  When the FBI sent the Strzok email above to congress, under threat of subpoena and obstructing justice from committee chair Devin Nune, the damning phrase in bold above-- "We'll stop it," referring to Trump possibly winning--was redacted.

This alone should be obstruction of justice, without question.

A message from an unnamed agent in November 2016 lays it out plainly: although the FBI found Clinton aide Huma Abedin had “lied,” the agent said it doesn’t matter since “no one at DOJ is going to prosecute.” To which a second agent replies. “Rog[er]—noone is going to pros[ecute] even if we find unique classified.”

The facts show Justice Department personnel dripping with bias in their decision to cut deals with Mrs. Clinton and her staff, agreeing to limitations in searching for and in their official government Blackberries, and to shield them from a grand jury. 

The DOJ also offered top Hilliary aides immunity, but got nothing useful in return.  (Normally immunity is only offered if a witness offers to testify on specific points that would show lawbreaking by a higher-up.)

Astonishingly, the IG report doesn't blast any FBI or DOJ officials for any of the scores of findings of adverse actions motivated by a government employee's hatred of one party's presidential candidate.  That is, facts that should should be prosecutable didn't trigger the logical conclusions by the IG.

Of course it's said that other reports may be forthcoming, but I'm expecting more of exactly the same stuff.  My sense of it is that if one FBI agent had emailed the bureau's director saying "If this orange fascist wins, we need to shoot him," the IG would have dismissed it as simply "insubordination."

Here's how un-serious the FBI is about this:  Special agent Peter Strzok is still working for the
bureau.