He Told OIG He Chose Not to Give the Campaign a Defensive Briefing

DOCUMENTED

Priestap “considered whether the FBI should conduct defensive briefings for the Trump campaign but ultimately decided that providing such briefings created the risk that ‘if someone on the campaign was engaged with the Russians, he/she would very likely change his/her tactics and/or otherwise seek to cover-up his/her activities, thereby preventing us from finding the truth.’” DOJ OIG Crossfire Hurricane review, examination excerpt hosted at justice.gov

The Inspector General recorded Priestap’s explanation in the official review. The OIG then wrote that it did not identify any Department or FBI policy that applied to the defensive-briefing choice and “determined that the decision was a judgment call that Department and FBI policy leaves to the discretion of FBI officials.”

That is the record. He said he thought about briefing the campaign. He said he decided not to, because a briefing might change tactics or produce a cover-up. The Inspector General did not convert that judgment into a crime. The Inspector General did not find a policy that required the briefing.

Commentary that he “spied on a campaign” by skipping a briefing is opinion. The quote is fact. Keep them apart.

Sources

DOJ OIG. Crossfire Hurricane review, examination excerpt. December 2019. justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

Horowitz written statement, Senate Judiciary. December 11, 2019. oig.justice.gov/node/1100

Opinion

The following is commentary by this site. It is not a finding of fact and not a legal conclusion.

Compiler take

They opened on the campaign and then decided the campaign should not be told. Priestap said the quiet part: a briefing might let someone change tactics. That is how you treat a target, not a partner. OIG shrugged and called it discretion. Discretion is how a lot of damage got done in 2016.