IMO Strzok was already under surveillance by the IG. They already had his emails expressing his support of Hillary and dislike of Trump during the campaign. The IG's January 2017 mandate, as shown below, was quite specific, including leaks. It is quite possible that Strzog was involved in leaking of Flynn's conversations with the Russians and the IG became aware of it at some point. The IG would certainly have contacted Mueller if they found that one of his staff was a leaker. The integrity of the investigation was paramount. It is why Mueller kept it quiet.
The goal should be to disband Mueller's team, so if we can do it based on text messages, which are likely already existing, the hanging fruit becomes lower.
Disband how? So far, none of Mueller's staff has resigned or been let go except Strzog. And if they go, who determines the replacement? The investigation will go on until Mueller decides it is finished or Trump fires the lot of them, which would result in a political firestorm reminiscent of the Saturday night massacre.
I'm not sure of that. The currently believed story is that his firing was for these messages, not a leak. So the believability off it just being messages is high, and we want to keep it there unless there's concrete proof to the opposite.
Who is the source for the reason for his firing? Can we believe it? IMO his firing had more to do with what the IG found about his substantive role in the investigations and possible leaking than some text messages. You don't assign someone to a holding tank (HR) for such a long time. The FBI did not want to assign him to a substantive job, something highly unusual given his grade and status within the organization. I have worked in the bureaucracy for 36 years and was an SES officer.
And the answer is obvious if you weren't so committed to defending (your friends at?) the DoJ. The President was able to forcefully speak out about the double standard going back to Clinton. The crush on Mueller's credibility has been quick and severe, with multiple op-eds calling for his ouster yesterday. Of course they wanted it kept quiet.
Multiple of op-eds from whom? The WSJ and the NYP are the only ones I am aware of. The NYT, WP, and LAT have not called for Mueller to resign or be fired. Nor has NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, or Fox. As I mentioned before, you seem to living in a bubble or echo chamber. Aside from those on our side, the perception of Mueller is quite different than the one we have.
We'll see, but I clearly remain skeptical, as they are already misleading with what is going on by calling the IG audit an "investigation" when that process is clearly not an actual FBI investigation. It's an audit. Has it led to an actual investigation, before the audit is even officially over? I doubt it, since the audit isn't over, and he's still drawing a check reporting to the office. In many actual investigations against law enforcement officers, they are typically suspended and kept from workforce interactions completely.
That's not the way it works in the federal government. It is very difficult to fire civil service employees. There are plenty of hoops that management must go through. And until the person is found guilty of an offense, the pay checks continue. Look at the case of Lois Lerner who plead the Fifth but was allowed to retire with a full pension.
We don't know if the IG has already forwarded a recommendation to prosecute Strzog. We don't know who is involved in the 27 leaker cases. DOJ and the FBI cannot confirm or deny the existence of individual investigations.
You're either hanging in the wrong circles, in the D.C. bubble, or both.
Give me some examples of public outrage by the public or the MSM on the treatment of Manafort.