I've only read about this in passing, but weren't these private text messages? Do you think he is allowed to have a personal political opinion? Is there any real evidence that his personal political opinion caused a different direction in the investigation? Also, Mueller, recognized the appearance of a conflict and promptly acted on it.

What do mean by this? Email, text, autographing yearbooks. It's all private until someone wants to use it against you.

Not private if your using a gov issued phone or if you send to another gov agency.

and too another govt employee

---

--------------------------
The secret of a long life is you try not to shorten it.
-Nobody

and, while using official titles.

"under a statute she clearly violated"
"a number of others on Mueller’s team who are clearly compromised"
"rid those agencies of the partisan political corruption that clearly pervades them."
This is clearly bad writing. Clearly.
Look, 65% of the country don't like Trump. I've no reason to think Mueller's team feel differently but reallocating Strzok to the HR department sounds like firing to me when you're talking about a senior investigator.
The only thing trying to trigger a "complete collapse of the FBI and Justice Department’s trustworthiness and credibility. " is Trump. W

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

Wasn't he having an extramarital affair with the FBI attorney with whom he was exchanging these texts?

He's compromised and should have recused himself from the investigation. Probably, both he and that FBI attorney, should be fired. You can't have even a scintilla of partisanship when your investigation is looking at issues and actions at the highest level of government, the office of the President and his people.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

" the complete collapse of the FBI and Justice Department’s trustworthiness and credibility"


Not to worry. Trump has already tweeted that he's going to make the FBI great again.

Maybe they can start by finding Jimmy Hoffa...

• Strzok was reportedly the official responsible for changing language in former FBI director James Comey's statement describing Clinton's private email server use from "grossly negligent" — which could carry criminal penalties — to "extremely careless."
• Strzok was also the FBI agent who officially signed off on the bureau's decision to launch its Russia investigation in July 2016.

http://www.businessinsider.com/...tion-mueller-2017-12

Also Strzok was the guy who interviewed Clinton principles Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, both of whom it was found lied to the FBI, but somehow avoided being charged.

It appears Mueller agrees with you and took action. So what’s the problem??

Demoted him. Should have been fired from the FBI. He appears, on the face of things, to have concealed, at minimum, intense biases against key players in the investigation he was helping supervise.

There's also the fact that Mueller not disclosing to Flynn's lawyers information that may have been helpful to his defense (Strzok's animus and bias as to the President, which a reasonable person would infer also transfers over to those individuals working as his closest advisers) could place the entire Flynn case in jeopardy.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that information garnered by the prosecution must be disclosed to the defendant as well as the judge and any jury impaneled as a result of a trial. Withholding of such information -- even if only negligently (there is no "good faith" exception in this regard) -- can result in a verdict being overturned. It may be just as applicable to a guilty plea, given that had such information been disclosed to Flynn he may not have been so amenable to said plea. This is called "Giglio material." Again, not sure if it strictly applies in plea deals, but it bears examination.

The question at hand is just why Robert Mueller didn't disclose to Flynn and his lawyers that one of the key witnesses against him -- FBI agent Peter Strzok, and upon whose recollection (as supervisor of the FBI interview of Flynn) the case of perjury on the part of Flynn rests -- was fired for being a partisan player, against the president for whom Flynn worked.

Maybe that was to convince Flynn to take the plea deal to avoid a trial and subsequent discovery of all evidence held by the prosecution, such as Strzok, the key witness against Flynn, being fired for bias and conduct prejudicial to Flynn's ability to mount an effective defense.

If I were Flynn's lawyer, knowing of Strzok's actions, I certainly wouldn't have taken such a plea at that point and would have looked forward to discrediting and impeaching Strzok, the FBI agent who supervised Flynn's interview, the one in which he allegedly perjured himself to the FBI and Strzok as the supervising agent.

Flynn is a foolish man, bottom line. He never should have consented to an interview with the FBI, and apparently on short notice and under the guise of FBI investigators just coming over to his office to ask him some non-investigation-related "questions." He doubled down on his foolishness by not screaming to the high heavens about his treatment at the hands of the FBI, but maybe he stayed mum to protect his son, who apparently was under some legal jeopardy as well. It's all very interesting, I have to admit.

P.S. Don't be surprised if the Orange-Haired Wonder doesn't pardon Flynn, or even just commute his sentence once that's passed and Mueller puts his investigation to bed. Or is fired by said Orange-Haired Guy. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Saying nothing of the obvious conflicts of interest running rampant throughout this administration which you don’t give a damn about.....you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about the facts of an investigation in which you have absolutely no involvement.

Also I doubt Mueller has the authority to fire FBI agents.