First hint of something there; opposition research - Breitbart:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/05/fbi-agent-mueller-changed-clinton-email-grossly-negligent-extremely-careless/
Given the source, second sourcing seemed wise, starting with the Big B item linking here.
Next, after looking at a few return list items, a further search is suggested:
search = Peter Strzok's texts with Lisa Page "insurance policy"
That seach led to items here and here. Each argues to minimize the range of implications that might be drawn.
However, it all is disquieting where the FBI in an ideal utopian world functions aside from politics. That texting stuff suggests a non-Utopian agency afoot, which means every citizen should reflect upon the news.
Breitbart making hay while the sun shines: http://www.breitbart.com/tag/peter-strzok/
Whatever it all truly means, it is a highly placed FBI investigator and a lawyer being indiscreet about a bias in a way that hands critics a loaded pistol and says, "Shoot my foot."
Bad practice? Cause to fire both, not merely to demote? Readers can consider that. And should. Out the door yesterday would be suitable, as an opinion held by Crabgrass. Heads on pikes. That stuff should never have happened; however telling or innocent it can be spun.
It is flawed practice.
BOTTOM LINE: The Uranium One situation seems to now still be getting less attention than the public, arguably, deserves. With the texting thing, an unbiased Uranium One thorough investigation credibly happening might have gotten a boost. Bernie was robbed by DNC insiders. That's politics. This is FBI folks showing bias. It is extremely depressing.
________________UPDATE________________
A few related links:
CBS, setting out textings. I entirely agree with what the two exchanged; their assessments were spot on [except for dissing Bernie and others outside the Trump-Pence orbit]; but in their position they should maintain ideal impartiality while involved in an investigation with a target or targets.
Politico, a content based report of the texting between the pair.
Wikipedia.
CNN. Also CNN, here. That last item seems to show multi-party intent to put Humpty Dumpty together again.
Taking it tabloid; Daily Mail.
The order of the above listing is how links were opened in the browser; i.e, there is no intentional structuring of items. One bottom line conclusion readers may reach after some reading: the pair, Grinch-like, have hit Christmas without any actual kind word for anyone. One wonders whether there were withheld texting things about Mueller, trashing him too. Two pieces of work.
_____________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
This item, it is FOX, so it is over the top propaganda-wise, AND tweets do suck big time; but these closing paragraphs do spot a follow-the-money situation that should be considered objectively by readers:
[FBI person Andrew] McCabe’s wife, Jill, received roughly $675,000 from McAuliffe’s PAC Common Good VA and the Virginia Democratic Party, according to FactCheck.org. The group reported that McCabe was at the time running the FBI’s Washington, D.C., bureau that was assisting with the Clinton email probe and that he didn’t become deputy director until after his wife lost her bid.
The Justice Department’s Inspector General’s Office is reportedly probing McCabe’s role in the Clinton email investigation.
So Justice Dept. IG on that, as well as, again FOX sourced as a needed caveat:
EXCLUSIVE – Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email investigation by Peter Strzok, a former deputy to the assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.
A source close to the matter said the OIG probe, which will examine Strzok's roles in a number of other politically sensitive cases, should be completed by "very early next year."
The task will be exceedingly complex, given Strzok's consequential portfolio. He participated in the FBI's fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email server.
Early next year is the target date for the IG to report investigation results. It always seemed strange the FBI interviewed Clinton, rather than taking a statement under oath. Are the Clintons a continuing millstone around the Democratic Party's neck? Will the IG report be siginificant, politically if not as a matter of anyone going into the slammer? Wait and see.
Will the IG produce a "grossly negligent" finding in reporting, an "extremely careless" finding, or something exonerating FBI behavior, all or in part, one way or another?