That is the Inspector General, not a column. Horowitz told the Senate the opening decision was Priestap’s and “reflected a consensus reached after multiple days of discussions and meetings among senior FBI officials.” The date on the case is July 31, 2016. The predication Horowitz described was information from a Friendly Foreign Government about a conversation involving campaign adviser George Papadopoulos.

The OIG review’s examination text, hosted by the Department of Justice, says Priestap “approved the case opening” and told investigators that the FFG information plus the FBI’s cyber intrusion work on the July 2016 Democratic National Committee hacks created a counterintelligence concern the Bureau was “obligated” to investigate. It also says Priestap was Strzok’s supervisor and “the official who ultimately made the decision to open the investigation.”

Horowitz separately wrote that Priestap’s exercise of discretion complied with Department and FBI policies, and that the OIG “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced his decision.” That sentence is an official finding about his opening decision. It is not a finding that the later FISA applications were clean. It is not a jury verdict. It is not a finding that the investigation never touched a campaign.

An Electronic Communication opening a case is not a court. A news story is not the opening EC. Read the OIG pages.