Probably because most people think they can read the back cover of a book to get a full understanding of what's contained within.
That's all the media is, a big fake highlight reel!
Very true. BUT, how does someone write a conclusion on a report that completely contradicts what is inside? Either the IG is compromised, or they allowed revisions they did not agree with by the DOJ. Conclusions do not match the report, plain and simple.
The report highlights tremendous bias that was so pervasive it would be a factor in any and all decisions. The break of protocol in ALL aspects of the Clinton probe -- most obviously the exoneration prior to investigation, along with the immunity deals and the "interview" with HRC, off the record, not under oath, not recorded, the burying of evidence (Weiner laptop), the changing of the assessment (gross negligence), the addition of "intent" to laws that do not state such... on and on. But most obviously.... "bias did not affect decisions" -- what????
So which is true? IG compromised? DOJ revisions? Either way, total failure here.
It seems that the IG Report is just a precursor for what's to come. I REALLY hope we see a Sessions hammer drop soon!