'The OIG found Strzok's texts were inappropriate. But the IG still did not think the Clinton probe was swayed for political reasons, as Strzok was not the sole decision-maker.
"As we describe in this chapter, we found that Strzok was not the sole decision-maker for any of the specific investigative decisions examined in this chapter," the report said. "We further found evidence that in some instances Strzok and Page advocated for more aggressive investigative measures than did others on the Midyear team, such as the use of grand jury subpoenas and search warrants to obtain evidence." '

Clearly Strzok and Page were politically biased - but the conclusion of the report doesn't sound nearly as bad as you make it seem when you read it in context. Just very careful about what it positively affirms and what it merely suggests (there's additional stuff about indications, but again no proof, that Strzok may have given undue priority to the Russia investigation over the Clinton one).

My personal rule for all this stuff lately has become to check for the comments of people like Trey Gowdy or Richard Burr - Republican politicians who aren't neutral exactly, but who know what they are talking about on this kind of thing and carefully stick to the actual facts, unlike many Republicans in the House, let alone the clowns in the White House. And yeah, Gowdy also figures that this report shows some pretty serious flaws in the FBI's investigation of Clinton as well as different standards between the two investigations, see his statement in the linked article.

So I'm inclined to agree that inappropriate things happened which shouldn't have happened, even if the 'witch hunt' rhetoric is ridiculous. It does make you wonder if it's really possible to eliminate such bias 100 percent, especially in a society as extremely polarized as the United States (and, might I add, a society which in many cases appoints judges and law enforcement personnel through elections, though obviously not FBI staff).