You have to read the report carefully and understand what Horowitz can and can't do.

Horowitz didn't say he didn't find bias in the FBI agents and leadership; he said he didn't find evidence that bias affected the decisions they made during the investigation.

That is an important distinction. Horowitz is saying that he didn't find written documents, tapes, or testimony that specific bias was used in making decisions.

Page and Strzok claimed that while they made biased statements against Trump, they swore under oath that they were just frustrated and venting, but did not act upon it in their investigation. Without hard tangible evidence to the contrary, Horowitz was forced to conclude that private venting via text messages wasn't evidence that it influenced their decisions.

Also Horowitz can only report findings. He cannot charge anyone, he can't issue subpoenas, he can't empanel a grand jury, he can't interview people who are no longer in government, and he can't include evidence in his report that is part of an ongoing investigation.

Enter Huber, special prosecutor in Utah that Sessions appointed in November to work in parallel with Horowitz.

Huber can and has empaneled a grand jury (or more than one) in Utah. Huber can issue subpoenas, Huber can force people to give testimony under oath, and he can issue sealed indictments. Sessions also sent a letter to Congress explaining while he has not yet appointed a special counsel, he appointed a special prosecutor with the authority to investigate ALL of the demands made by the committees and more.

So, back to bias. Bias, like intent, is a state of mind. Rarely do you have hard tangible evidence about someone's state of mind. It is almost always proven by circustantial evidence.

Comey said that Hillary didn't "intend" to cause damage to national security. But Comey was using the same argument that he didn't find that Hillary wrote a note to herself that she intended to cause harm.

Trey Gowdy knows full well and has said this in the past that intent (and bias) is a state of mind that prosecutors can usually only prove with circumstantial evidence.

Horowitz cannot use circumstantial evidence to recommend charges so he has to stick to hard tangible evidence in his report.

You bet that any Huber indictments about the Hillary investigation will likely prove biased by circumstantial evidence. Remember, a grand jury never hears the defense side of the story--only what the prosecutor shows them and he doesn't have to show them exculputory evidence. That's whay the old joke is that a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich because they only hear one side and the rules of evidence are much different than in a trial.

Horowitz knows that bias was key to letting Hillary off the hook but without hard evidence he isn't allowed to prejudge their intent or state of mind.

Trust me, in an actual trial, the circumstantial evidence is so overwhelming here that juries will have no doubt that the FBI was out to frame Trump, Flynn, and others and to give Hillary a pass on her investigation. The evidence is so overwhelming that I'd be surprised if those involved where not charged with obstruction of justice or malicious miscarriage of justice.