...and I apologize for the (since corrected) typo in my post. It should have read "pretending not to know". Here's a partial list of what you're pretending not to know:

1) An IG appointed by the Obama administration to investigate the Obama administration is not apolitical and should, in fact, be presumed to be the opposite. To take at face value any report by government investigating government is childish. You pretend it can't be anything but apolitical, though, to claim the report's conclusions cannot be challenged.

2) Regardless, the Horowitz report did not absolve the FBI/DOJ -- far from it. It did not "determine that the FBI acted properly", as you pretend it does. It was incredibly damning.

Although you pretend otherwise, the issue isn't whether the FBI met the low bar to open an investigation. The issue is that the FBI used falsified evidence -- and falsified evidence itself -- to keep the investigation going -- including spying -- despite having no justifiable reason for doing so and in the face of exculpatory evidence. That's why it was bogus and corrupt.

You also pretend not to know that the report says that government officials interviewed were not credible. And you pretend not to know that it led to those same government officials -- very senior FBI/DOJ officials -- getting referred for prosecution, fired and demoted.

Your pretense aside, do you really think that's an absolution of law enforcement agencies in this matter? LOL. It's beyond absurd. I challenge you to name another investigation anywhere EVER that had so many government officials go down in flames as a result of their participation in it.

In addition, facts -- which you also pretend not to know about -- withheld from Horowitz at the time of his report and since released have torn away even the thin veil of propriety that he ascribed just to the initiation of the investigation.

3) Comey and McCabe (and Clinton, for that matter) ADMITTED to their crimes. There is no dispute about what they did or that they admitted to it. You pretend not to know this so that you can pretend that, because the DOJ abdicated its responsibility to prosecute their lawbreaking, they're innocent. That they were not prosecuted or convicted is not evidence of their innocence, however. It is instead evidence of the corruption of the justice system.

4) The senate intel report on which you rely is a political document, not the independent investigation you pretend it is. You laughably pretend that since it was "bipartisan", it must have been objective without admitting that even many of the R's on that committee are NeverTrumpers. You also pretend not to know that the committee's own director of security was corrupt, and then you further pretend that no one else working on the committee could have been. But, again, since you haven't read it, you don't even know what you're talking about.