Thread by @graywolf442

NT! Starting with this report from the Washington Examiner, I want to kind of break down what *my* understanding of what this means. Caveat: I could be wrong.
tinyurl.com/yxlnn6o8

First of all, is this a crime? After all, HRC and her aides deleted over 30,000 emails, claiming that they pertained to personal stuff, such as yoga, etc. (which we've since learned was not the case). So did Nellie Ohr commit a crime?

In the report, she states that she [was] deleting emails from her husband Brice Ohr's official email account on his computer; a reminder - he's an employee of the DoJ, while Nellie is not, but somehow has access to his official DoJ email account.

Does email on an official government email account belong to the government, or to the user? Is it considered a federal record, and therefore government property? If it's a federal record, is it to be retained by the agency of employment of the government official?

Emails generated by an official of the government, in this case Bruce Ohr, on their official agency email account are considered public government records, and are therefore to be retained for public scrutiny under FOIA by the employing agency.

Side note - how and why Nellie Ohr had access to Bruce's official DoJ email account is a question that needs to be addressed by those investigating, and won't be addressed here, except to say that I find that very problematic.

The definition of records and the requirement for retention are found here -
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44…

And here -
archives.gov/records-mgmt/f…

And here, you will find who is responsible for preventing the unauthorized destruction of records, and the penalties that can be levied, sections 1230.10 and 1230.12 -
ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i…

By stating that she was deleting the emails from his official DoJ email account, Nellie has admitted to destroying government property, which is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1361 -
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18…

As well as a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2071 -
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18…

As well as a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 641 -
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18…

As well as a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1519, which regards federal investigations; a reminder that she is part of more than one current investigation at this time -
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18…

Which brings us to here, obstruction of criminal investigations -
18 U.S. Code § 1510 -
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18…

Which then brings us to here - 18 U.S. Code § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant, in that by deleting the emails, she is tampering with records, subsection (a) (1) (B) -
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18…

So, I count a *minimum* of six federal statutes that she is potentially in violation of, and possibly more (such as the previously mentioned question of how she had access to his official email account).

This is just *one* individual that AG Barr is looking at. How many others he and his team are looking at isn't known by me at this time, other than those who have already been publicly identified as being involved in this mess.

Where this leads is, right now, anyone's guess, but my little bit of research shows that there is a lot to look at, and that's why the House Dems are working so hard to discredit AG Barr, in order to discredit his findings later on down the road.

Disparage the messenger in the court of public opinion, and you disparage the message, putting doubt in the minds of ordinary people. And that's why I think Barr's appointment of Durham is brilliant.

Durham is basically "untouchable" reputationally, having been appointed by both Democrat (BHO) and Republican (GHWB) Presidents, and unanimously confirmed each time by the Senate, and highly praised by *both* Senators from Connecticut.

We have an Attorney General who is not affected by partisan politics, regardless of the comments made by many in Congress, who is only interested in following the law, and is committed to finding out the truth in this mess, no matter where it leads.