edits to add: Corrected inadvertent insertion of one of my paragraphs at the end of the second quote from the OIG Executive Summary below, and adding the link to the OIG report itself, which is https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download 

The main findings of the report were critical of a number of Comey's decisions on the HRC email investigation, and of pro-Clinton actions of some FBI employees.

On the former, from page x of the Executive Summary of the OIG report itself:

We found no evidence that Comey’s decision to send the October 28 letter was influenced by political preferences. Instead, we found that his decision was the result of several interrelated factors that were connected to his concern that failing to send the letter would harm the FBI and his ability to lead it, and his view that candidate Clinton was going to win the presidency and that she would be perceived to be an illegitimate president if the public first learned of the information after the election. Although Comey told us that he “didn’t make this decision because [he] thought it would leak otherwise,” several FBI officials told us that the concern about leaks played a role in the decision.

Much like with his July 5 announcement, we found that in making this decision, Comey engaged in ad hoc decisionmaking based on his personal views even if it meant rejecting longstanding Department policy or practice. We found unpersuasive Comey’s explanation as to why transparency was more important than Department policy and practice with regard to the reactivated Midyear investigation while, by contrast, Department policy and practice were more important to follow with regard to the Clinton Foundation and Russia investigations.

Comey’s description of his choice as being between “two doors,” one labeled “speak” and one labeled “conceal,” was a false dichotomy. The two doors were actually labeled “follow policy/practice” and “depart from policy/practice.” Although we acknowledge that Comey faced a difficult situation with unattractive choices, in proceeding as he did, we concluded that Comey made a serious error of judgment.

It's easy to get lost in the blizzard of information and developments that have been in the media.  

The main outlines of this story seem to me to remain.

The conduct of the FBI as a whole overwhelmingly favored Trump during this past election:

*The HRC email investigation was in the media constantly, doing immense damage to Clinton

*The FBI knew about disconcerting and potentially nefarious contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians.  This was not, ahem, in the media constantly in the run to election day 2016.  

*Comey's announcement to re-open days before the election was highly unusual and was criticized heavily in the OIG report.

The fact that this report's finding that there were FBI employees who were pro-Clinton and acted inappropriately is being spun by pro-Trump forces as supporting the claims of a corrupt FBI engaged in a witch hunt against Trump is truly absurd.  It holds no water whatsoever. 

Page iii of the Executive Summary:

There were clearly tensions and disagreements in a number of important areas between Midyear agents and prosecutors. However, we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions we reviewed in Chapter Five, or that the justifications offered for these decisions were pretextual.

Nonetheless, these messages cast a cloud over the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation and the investigation’s credibility. But our review did not find evidence to connect the political views expressed in these messages to the specific investigative decisions that we reviewed; rather, consistent with the analytic approach described above, we found that these specific decisions were the result of discretionary judgments made during the course of an investigation by the Midyear agents and prosecutors and that these judgment calls were not unreasonable.

Anyone who keeps foremost in mind what actually happened and did not happen, who it helped and who it damaged severely, could not make such a claim with a straight face.

So the Trump camp spin is just another example of part of its MO: Offer competing narratives and interpretations, however unjustified and absurd, to further confuse matters.  Turn it into a she said/he said conflict where enough ordinary citizens conclude it is either far too confusing or unimportant or whatever to pay more attention to, or that both sides have their version and who is to say who is right, they're all acting in their self interest anyway, right?, and the Trump crowd gets the draw, or near draw, in public opinion, that they are seeking, to win or survive.