Some of the text messages in the IG report you probably have not seen

The Weekly Standard:

...
“You know, guys, I just, I think this was primarily used as a personal conversation venting mode for me. I’m embarrassed for it” Agent 1 told the IG investigators. But he was only humbled so far: “I don’t think that it affected my actions,” he insisted. Agent 1 had lots of explanations for why he was indiscreet with the IM-ing: The Midyear investigation team was crammed into a sensitive compartmented information facility at headquarters, and “Due to this, he was effectively unable to use his personal electronic devices at work, and was also in a small space with his coworkers and supervisors, thereby preventing phone communication.” But Agent 1 wanted the IG to know that this was merely an explanation for why he used instant messages, “not excuses for the substance of his instant messages.”

The substance, however, is telling—perhaps the most telling information in the IG’s report.

Agent 5 sent an instant message to Agent 1 on February 9, 2016, griping about the Midyear work she was being given to do. Agent 1 messaged back to commiserate: “Yeah, I hear you. You guys have a shitty task, in a shitty environment,” he wrote. “To look for something conjured in a place where you cant find it, for a case that doesnt matter and is predestined.” It’s bad enough that a lead agent on the Clinton case was convinced the outcome was “predestined,” but there’s more in Agent 1’s description of the culture they were operating in: “DOJ comes in there every once in awhile and takes a wishy-washy, political, cowardice stance. Salt meets wound. That is the environment love. Can’t sugar coat it.” At least he followed by telling his girlfriend to “do the best you can.”

That sounds like a frank and honest description of a politically skewed shop. But when asked about that message, Agent 1 had another message altogether for the IG: “I have no information that [the Clinton investigation] was a pre-determined outcome by anyone.” No, of course not.

But back in the day, Agent 1 was adamant that the fix was in. Take his January 2016 message to Agent 4 proclaiming “What we want to do and what we’re going to be allowed to do are two different things.” Asked about that quote by the IG, Agent 1 suffered a temporary bout of amnesia, unable to remember what he had been talking about. What he did know was that he had merely been “venting.”

It seems the fix was in not just for Hillary, but her enablers too. In February 2016, Agent 1 had just interviewed Hillary’s personal IT guy. The agent then had this exchange with a fellow FBI employee:

FBI Employee: “boom…how did the [witness] go”

Agent 1: “Awesome. Lied his ass off. Went from never inside the scif [sensitive compartmented information facility] at res, to looked in when it was being constructed, to remove the trash twice, to troubleshot the secure fax with HRC a couple times, to everytime there was a secure fax i did it with HRC. Ridic,”

FBI Employee: “would be funny if he was the only guy charged n this deal”

Agent 1: “I know. For 1001. Even if he said the truth and didnt have a clearance when handling the secure fax — aint noone gonna do s--t”

Say what you will about the cynicism, Agent 1 was right. Given the prosecutorial proclivity for jailing people who are untruthful with the FBI, it pays to be in the Clinton’s orbit.

Agent 5 did her share of texting too. She joked to Agent 1 that Donald Trump’s supporters in Ohio were “retarded.” She sneered that she didn’t know who was worse, Trump, the FBI, or “+o( Average American public.” Come election day she proclaimed that, should Hillary lose, “I’m gonna be walking around with both of my guns…and likely quitting on the spot.” She was just getting started: “screw you trump,” Agent 5 texted while at work, “wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!”

Defenders of the FBI have long argued that Page and Strzok were radical outliers in the culture of the FBI headquarters. These revelations make that a more difficult case. Could someone rise to senior levels of the FBI if these views, and the language used to express, were far out of the mainstream? Their behavior presents a grotesque caricature of what we taxpayers should expect from federal law enforcement.
...

This is more evidence that the fix was in to exonerate Clinton and those associated with her while pivoting to an attempted takedown of Trump.   The corruption was deep and it cannot be cured with "bias training."  It will take firings and replacing those responsible for this travesty.