Anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok was told of the possibility that Hillary Clinton’s secret server might have been hacked and did nothing, according to Fox News.

While the rest of America’s anti-Trump news media chase prostitutes in Thailand and exploit a troubled man, Fox News is doing actual reporting, which oftentimes results in actual news — like the potential bombshell that disgraced (but still employed) FBI agent Strzok might have covered up evidence of a potential breach in Clinton’s secret email server — a server that held classified national security intelligence.

According to Fox, “Sources [said] that Strzok, who sent anti-Trump text messages that got him removed from the ongoing Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, was told about the metadata anomaly in 2016, but Strzok did not support a formal damage assessment.”

One source told Fox, “Nothing happened.”

What Strzok was allegedly informed of was an “irregularity in the metadata,” which is a big red flag pointing to a hack.

Fox further reports this is an apparent breach of FBI protocol. “[D]irective 732, damage assessments are done in response to unauthorized disclosure or compromise of classified national intelligence.”

Fox reminds us that, “Intelligence beyond top secret was identified on the Clinton server. As secretary of state, Clinton chose to use a private, non-secure server for government business.”

Outside of the obvious security implications, another reason this is important comes down to the statement disgraced former-FBI Director James Comey made when he went out of his way to let Clinton off the hook during the 2016 presidential campaign.

In July of 2016, Comey reassured us that, “With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked.” (emphasis added)

But, as we now know, between May and June, Comey’s statement was also edited from a hack of Clinton’s server being “reasonably likely” to merely “possible.”

“Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account,” he said before clearing her of any legal wrongdoing.

We also know that Strzok was responsible for the language in this statement that was downgraded from “grossly negligent” (a criminal offense) to “extremely careless.”

If these Fox’s sources are correct — and an Inspector General’s report on the FBI’s handling of its investigation into Clinton’s server is expected to tell us soon either way — outside of Strzok’s possible malfeasance, what did Comey know when he assured us there was no “direct evidence” of a hack? Was he aware of the irregularity in the metadata that was evidence of a breach?

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.