Criticism of James Comey is nothing new—it’s one of the few things that both Republicans and Democrats can agree on. Which made the headline takeaway of the Department of Justice Inspector General’s report—that Comey deviated from FBI norms—something less than a surprise. But the Comey story isn’t even close to being the most interesting or instructive finding by the IG.

Perhaps the most shocking information in the IG’s report is the revelation that Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were not the only amorous agents with a habit of texting. There were also “Agent 1” and “Agent 5,” who were involved in the Clinton investigation and, according to the IG’s report “were in a relationship at the time and are now married.” Their communications make for a searing indictment of the culture of the FBI and paint a portrait of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email practices as fiasco.

Agent 1 was one of the key players in the investigation—one of just four “case agents” on the probe—and he not only expressed his political support for Clinton, he advocated against subjecting Hillary to an FBI interview. A few days before the Clinton confab, he sent an instant-message in which he complained about how many agents and attorneys were prepping for the questioning: “… very aggravating making this flow with 20+ voices for disparate information anyway.” Fair enough. But then, as the message goes on he suggests that he has a certain lack of enthusiasm for the whole affair. “We have nothing—shouldn’t even be interviewing”

Just in case his girlfriend didn’t savvy the full extent of his disgruntlement at the prospect of interviewing Hillary Clinton, Agent 1 added “My god … I’m actually starting to have embarrassment sprinkled on my disappointment. … Ever been forced to do something you adamantly opposed.”

Asked by the IG about these comments, Agent 1 insisted he hadn’t meant his message: “I don’t want to make it sound like there was no reason to interview her.” As for explaining his “adamantly opposed” comments, Agent 1’s memory seemed to give out.

There are reasons to think that Agent 1 was dissatisfied because the organization was phoning in a politically determined investigation. But there are also reasons to think his unhappiness flowed from an admiration for Hillary. Take his message to Agent 5 after completing the questioning of Clinton: “done interviewing the President.”

And then there’s this heartfelt string of missives from Agent 1 to Agent 5 on November 8, 2016—election day: “You should know; … that I’m … with her.” (The IG helpfully adds in a footnote that “’I’m with her’ was one of the Clinton campaign slogans.”)

Here are some of the highlights of Agent 1’s comments about his work on the “Midyear” investigation as the Clinton case was code-named:

“… the most meaningless thing I’ve ever done with people acting like f---ing 9/11.”

“… I dont care about it. I think its continued waste of resources and time and focus…”

“Its just so obvious how pointless this exercise is …”

Put on the spot by the IG, Agent 1 explained his indiscreet comments as just being the nature of using instant messaging. He succumbed to a “water cooler” style of “jocularity” because he thought IMs “were not retained by the FBI and therefore used less caution with those communications than he would have with other types of communications.”

“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.

The “conduct of these employees cast a cloud over the entire FBI investigation and sowed doubt about the FBI’s work on, and its handling of, the Midyear investigation,” the inspector general concluded. “The damage caused by these employees’ actions extends far beyond the scope of the Midyear investigation and goes to the heart of the FBI’s reputation for neutral factfinding and political independence.”

The IG is right, of course. But disciplining those employees will not be nearly enough to fix what’s amiss with the FBI and the DoJ.

