Federal grand juries return incitements over 99% of the time. A judge once said that a prosecutor could get a jury to indite a ham sandwich (this is just barely an exaggeration). Good old Bob has a vested interest in serving his team mates (the cops) and letting this one slide by. That's why he presented all the evidence (pretty much unheard of for a grand jury) instead of presenting his best case that a crime was committed and should go to trial (normal order for a grand jury).
Exactly. A prosecutor asks for an indictment, and presents only the evidence necessary to establish probably cause typically. In this case, the prosecutor did not ask for an indictment and just backed the entire truck of evidence up on the jury and said "Here you go. Do what you want with it." It was designed to increase the odds of the outcome he wanted.
I can't approach him with a 10' pole on the subject. It's all I can do to keep him from vomiting on about 'those people' unsolicited. For all his intimate knowledge on the subject, he is incapable of parsing it in an unbiased fashion. For him, any deviation from standard procedure falls loudly, squarely, and justly into the "we did it this way in the holy name of transparency and fairness" narrative that they crafted.